1. Management argued Government Order and settlement under Industrial Disputes Act override statute – Workmen countered that statute prevails and punishment irrelevant. (Para 3 , 4 )
Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice M.S. RAMESH
The Management Metropolitan Transport Corporation – Appellant
Versus
The Inspector Of Labour – Respondent
W.A.No.3397 of 2025|W.A.No.3416 of 2025|C.M.P.No.27706 of 2025|C.M.P.No.27925 of 2025
1. Management argued Government Order and settlement under Industrial Disputes Act override statute – Workmen countered that statute prevails and punishment irrelevant. (Para 3 , 4 )
2. Writ appeals dismissed – Management directed to comply with authority's order. (Para 11 )
No. The court held that when an Act provides a procedure for permanent status, no Government Order or circular can override the statutory provisions. (Para 6 , 7 )
No. The court agreed that the terms of a settlement under Section 12(3) cannot override statutory provisions. (Para 7 )
The court held that when the workmen had already completed 480 days before the punishment, the punishment cannot affect the statutory entitlement. (Para 8 , 9 )
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.S.RAMESH, J.
The above Writ Appeals have been filed against the common order dated 27.01.2020 made in W.P.Nos.29149 and 29150 of 2017.
2. The facts before the Writ Court are as follows:-
The 2nd respondents in the above Writ Appeals were appointed as a daily wage employees on 17.02.2011 and 26.03.2011 respectively, after being sponsored by the Employment Exchange. When they had sought conferment of permanent status under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981, the 1st respondent authority had taken into account the salary slips paid to the workmen and had arrived at the conclusion that they had completed 480 days within the preceding 24 calender months, through its order dated 15.12.2014.
2.1. When the Management had challenged the orders of the authority before the Writ Court in W.P.Nos.29149 and 29150 of 2017, the Writ Petitions came to be dismissed on 27.01.2020, by rejecting the claim of the Management that the terms of a Settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, cannot override the provisions of a statute, for which purpose reliance was placed on the decision in Management, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd., Vs. Labour Inspector, Virudhunagar and another reported in 2019 (4) LLN 790 (DB) (Mad.)
2.2. These orders of dismissal are assailed in the above Writ Appeals.
3. Mr.M.Aswin, learned counsel for the appellant / Transport Corporation would place reliance on G.O.(D).No.41, Transport (C1) Department, dated 16.03.2007 and would submit that in view of the additional requirement of drivers and conductors, the 2nd respondents in the above Writ Appeals, like the other staff members, were recruited on a reserve basis and absorbed as per the norms fixed in G.O.(D).No.41. Since the absorption of the 2nd respondent is governed by G.O.(D).No.41, the authority ought not to have conferred the permanent status.
3.1. As an alternate submission, it is his case that the 2nd respondents in the above Writ Appeals were subjected to disciplinary proceedings and a punishments were also imposed and therefore, the punishment of postponement of permanency, ought to have been taken into account, while calculating 480 days for granting permanent status.
4. Per contra, Mr.Ajoy Khose, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondents in the above Writ Appeals would submit that when Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, provides for grant of permanent status to persons, who have completed 480 days in 24 calendar months, neither G.O.(D).No.41, Transport (C1) Department, dated 16.03.2007, nor the terms of Settlement under Section 12(3) of Industrial Disputes Act, could override the statutory provisions. With regard to the punishment, his submissions are two fold. Firstly, he would submit that when the punishment was imposed, the workmen had already completed the period of 480 days and therefore, the punishment has no consequence. Secondly, he would submit that the postponement of conferment of permanent status, is not a punishment prescribed under the regulations and as such, this punishment cannot be taken into account for any purpose, including the grant of permanent status.
5. We have given our anxious consideration to the submission made on either side.
6.We are not in agreement with the stand of the Transport Corporation that the permanent absorption of the workmen is governed by G.O.D.No.41. May be the Transport Corporation would have maintained a reserve list for the recruitment of drivers and conductors on a contingency basis. But when the Permanent Status Act provides for procedure for declaration of permanent status, no other Government Order or Circulars can override the procedure under the statute. When an authority under the Act records the fact of the workman having completed 480 days within the preceding 24 calendar
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top