Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
B. PUGALENDHI, J.
Muthulakshmi K. - Petitioner
Versus
The Assistant Commissioner Of Labour Authority Under Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment – Respondent
WP(MD) Nos.8192, 8201, 8209 & 8213 of 2021, 11639 to 11642 of 2024, WMP(MD) Nos.4947, 4949,4951,10369, 10370, 10372, 10371, 10373, 10374, 10377, 10378, 10379, 10380, 10381, 10382, 4954 of 2024 and 23624 of 2025
Decided On : 30-04-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dispute over permanent status orders and collateral writ petitions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. employees argue lawful appointments despite bypassing recruitment rules. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. backdoor entry invalidates permanent status claims; procedural compliance mandatory. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 4. autonomy does not excuse bypassing statutory recruitment procedures. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 5. fraud and collusion in appointments endanger co-operative institutions. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 6. orders of acl set aside; employees’ petitions dismissed. (Para 32) |
ORDER :
B. PUGALENDHI, J.
1.All these writ petitions are arising out of the orders dated 27.01.2021 passed by the 1st respondent / the Assistant commissioner of Labour (Enforcement), Dindigul / the Authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981, granting permanent status to the employees of the co-operative societies / writ petitioners in WP(MD)Nos.8192, 8201, 8209 and 8213 of 2021 (hereafter referred to as “employees”).
2.The employees, who were engaged by different co-operative societies have approached the Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Enforcement), Dindigul (in short “ACL”)/ the Authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981, seeking conferment of permanent status with attendant benefits that they had been engaged for more than 480 days continuously in the respective societies and the ACL by the impugned orders dated 27.01.2021 has issued a direction to the respective societies to regularise their services on completion of 480 days from their appointment within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order.
3.Subsequently, the employees with a grievance that the above orders of the ACL, dated 27.01.2021 have not been implemented by the respective societies, have filed writ petitions before this court in WP(MD)Nos.8192, 8201, 8209 and 8213 of 2021 seeking a writ of mandamus to the societies to implement the orders dated 27.01.2021. On 22.04.2021, the learned Additional Government Pleader, who appeared for the respective Presidents of the Societies, has stated before the court that the respective Presidents of the Societies / 2nd respondents have provided written instructions that the orders of the ACL dated 27.01.2021 would be implemented within a period of two weeks. A copy of the same was also produced before the court and based on the stand taken by the Presidents of the co-operative societies, this court by common order dated 22.04.2021 disposed the writ petitions filed by the employees with a direction to the respective Presidents of the Societies to implement the orders of the ACL and regularise their services within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. This common order was implemented in letter and spirit by the respective Presidents of the Societies by passing resolutions uniformly on 07.05.2021.
4.Strangely, the very same Presidents of the respective societies have filed writ appeals as against the common order dated 22.04.2021 before the Division Bench of this court in WA(MD)Nos.1614 to 1617 of 2021 on the following grounds:
(i)The writ petitions were disposed at the admission stage itself without providing an opportunity to the respondent societies to file counter. Hence, there was violation of principles of natural justice.
(ii)The employees concerned were not appointed as per the procedure in force and were not sponsored by the employment exchange. Therefore, it is an illegal appointment and the employees are not entitled to permanency.
5.The Deputy Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, Palani circle, Dindigul district and the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, Dindigul region have filed applications in the above writ appeals to implead them as respondents and the same were allowed by order dated 25.01.2023. The Dep
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Permanent Status Act and the Industrial Disputes Act are not applicable to appointments made in an illegal manner, and adherence to cadre ....
The provisions for a common cadre in the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act do not violate constitutional autonomy, as reasonable State regulation is permissible for effective governance.
The appellate authority under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act has jurisdiction to entertain appeals from employees of co-operative societies governed by the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societ....
Employees of cooperative societies cannot be classified as Railway servants, as they operate under the cooperative law without Railway administrative control, thus not entitled to benefits reserved f....
The test laid down in Marappan's case continues to govern the maintainability of writ petitions against Co-operative Societies.
Special Co-operative Societies Act prevails over general Shops Act; appeal under Shops Act Section 41 not maintainable for co-operative bank employees.
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
