A special statute with a non-obstante clause governing the permanent status of workmen overrides general service rules and administrative policies. Once a workman meets the statutory requirement of continuous service, the employer cannot deny regularization based on a lack of sanctioned posts or recruitment irregularities.

C O M M O N J U D G M E N T

1.Heard.

2.The Petitioner is the Co-operative Milk Producers Union of Tiruvannamalai District. These writ petitions have been filed challenging the orders passed by the 1st Respondent, the competent authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981. By the impugned orders dated 16.03.2020, the authority directed the Petitioner Union to confer permanent status upon 19 workmen, whose details are the subject matter of these writ petitions. The authority held that each of the said workmen had completed 480 days of service within a continuous period of 24 calendar months, thereby satisfying the statutory requirement for conferment of permanent status. The annexures to the impugned orders enumerate the names of the workmen, their respective dates of initial engagement, their designations, and the dates from which they were deemed to have acquired permanent status.

3.When both writ petitions were listed for admission on 03.12.2021, this Court ordered notice to the Respondents and granted an interim stay of the impugned orders. Pursuant to such notice, the Respondents entered appearance through counsel and have filed counter affidavits dated 18.10.2023 in both writ petitions. The principal ground urged by the Petitioner Union is that the workmen in question were engaged on a daily wage basis at the Dairy-cum- Powder Plant at Ammapalayam. In addition to the regular employees, the Petitioner submits that casual labourers were engaged intermittently for tasks such as packing of milk powder, storage, and loading of goods into lorries.

4.It was contended although the workmen were covered under the provisions of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act and the Employees’ State Insurance Act, the mere applicability of those statutes does not, by itself, confer upon them the status of regular employees. The Petitioner also contends that the benefit of G.O. (Ms) No. 74, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 27.06.2013—which provided for the regularisation of employees engaged on daily wages for ten years as on 01.01.2006—would not be applicable to the present set of workmen. Nevertheless, the concerned workers individually approached the 1st Respondent Authority seeking conferment of permanent status. In respect of the first writ petition, the claims of 17 workmen were consolidated and registered as Case No. 1 of 2018, and notice was issued to the Petitioner Union. Likewise, in respect of one Mr. V. Chennan, a separate proceeding was initiated and numbered as Case No. 1 of 2019. Along with their respective applications, the workmen had submitted their identity cards and Provident Fund receipts as documentary proof in support of their claims.

5.Upon receipt of notice in both cases, the Petitioner Union filed a counter statement opposing the claims of the workmen. In the said statement, it was contended that the contesting Respondents had never worked continuously for 240 days in any calendar year and, therefore, did not satisfy the statutory criteria for conferment of permanent status. It was further asserted that the Government Order relating to regularisation was inapplicable to them and, in the absence of valid orders of regular appointment, no claim for permanency could be sustained. The 1st Respondent Authority, after clubbing both matters, proceeded to pass a common order dated 16.03.2020.

6.In the impugned order, the Authority concluded that the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Per