1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated :: 09..06..2011 Coram:: THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE K. SUGUNA and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.ARUMUGHASWAMY Writ Appeal (MD)No.480 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.3 of 2011 1. The Management of Tamil Nadu Handicrafts Development Corporation Ltd., Represented by its Works and Production Manager, 759, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002. 2. The Superintendent, Poompuhar Brass Art ware Centre, An Unit of Tamil Nadu Handicrafts Development Corporation Ltd., Nachiyar Kovil Post, Kumbakonam Taluk, Tanjore District - 612 602. ..... Appellants/Respondents 1&2 - Vs - 1. S. Jeyakumar 2. N. Mahendran 3. B. Arputharaj 4. M. Vinoth 5. S. Dhakshinamoorthy 6. R. Sivakumar 7. T. P. Ramalingam 8. S. Samynathan 9. A. Thangasamy 10. A. Sekar 11. R. Nadanasigamani 12. S. Ananthan 13. T. Rajavel 14. K. Selvaraj 15. S. Chandru 16. N. Selvam 17. A. Arokeyasamy 18. B. Rajendran 19. J. Vedamoorthy 20. V. Govindaraj 21. J. Palanivel 22.E. R. Sellaiyan https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 23. The Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, Tanjore ....1 to 22 Respondents/Petitioners/ 23rd Respondent/3rd Respondent Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 18.10.2010 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD)No.8302 of 2008. Presented to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.2252/Work/OB-1 dated 18.06.2008, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to comply with the order of the third respondent dated 18.02.2008 and to make the petitioners permanent employees and to pay them all the consequential benefits. For Appellants :: Mr. S. Natarajan For Respondents :: Mr. S. Arunachalam for R-1 to R-22 - - - - - - - J U D G M E N T (Judgment of the Court was delivered by K. SUGUNA, J.) This Writ Appeal is filed as against the order of learned Single Judge dated 18.10.2010 in W.P.(MD)No.8302 of 2008. 2. The said writ petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order of the first respondent dated 18.06.2008, whereby the writ petitioners / respondents herein were informed that since in respect of other workers, an issue is pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court, after the orders of the Hon'ble Apex Court alone, the request to implement the order of the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories dated 18.02.2008 can be considered, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to comply with the order of the third respondent / The Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, Tanjore dated 18.02.2008 and to make the writ petitioners permanent employees and to pay them all the consequential benefits. 3. The learned Single Judge, by an order dated 18.10.2010 allowed the said writ petition. As against the said order, this writ appeal has been filed by the Management. 4. The writ petitioners / respondents herein have filed an application dated 12.10.2007 before the third respondent under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 and they demanded that they should be made permanent in terms of Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Act 46 of 1981 as each one https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 of the workmen has completed 480 days of continuous service. An enquiry was conducted and written statement was also filed by the official respondents. By an order dated 18.02.2008, the said application filed by the workmen was allowed, giving directions to the Management to confer permanent status to the writ petitioners / respondents herein. 5. As far as the order dated 18.02.2008 passed by the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, Tanjore is concerned, the Management has not challenged the same at all. 6. Now, the stand of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants is that since the issue with reference to the workers of the other unit is pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court, the writ petitioners / respondents herein are not entitled for the benefit of the order passed by the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, Tanjore dated 18.02.2008. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, even though the order of the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, Tanjore dated 18.02.2008 is not challenged by the Management, in the event of an order being passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in favour of the Management in the pending case before the Hon'ble Apex Court, the writ petitioners / respondents herein are not entitled to get the benefit of the order of Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories and this is the only argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 7. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. It is also fairly admitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the Management had not challenged the order dated 18.02.2008 passed by the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, Tanjore, by which permanent status has been conferred on the writ petitioners / respondents herein. Having allowed the order to reach its finality by which permanency was conferred on the workmen, now, we are of the opinion that the stand of the appellants cannot be accepted. Yet another factor to be noted is that as per the order dated 18.02.2008 passed by the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, Tanjore, some of the workmen are working from 1980 i.e., to say that for a period of nearly more than 30 years and their service have been utilized without conferring the benefit of permanent status to them. The duration of the term of service of the workmen is also not disputed before this Court by the appellant establishment. When the order dated 18.02.2008 passed by the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, Tanjore has reached its finality, we are of the view that without challenging the said order, the stand of the appellants cannot be accepted. Consequently, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge dated 18.10.2010 in W.P.(MD) No.8302 of 2008. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 8. In the result, this writ appeal is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected M.P.(MD)No.3 of 2011 is also dismissed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar(LA) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1. The Works and Production Manager, The Management of Tamil Nadu Handicrafts Development Corporation Ltd., 759, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002. 2. The Superintendent, Poompuhar Brass Art ware Centre, An Unit of Tamil Nadu Handicrafts Development Corporation Ltd., Nachiyar Kovil Post, Kumbakonam Taluk, Tanjore District - 612 602 3. The Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, Tanjore +One cc to M/s.S.Arunachalam, Advocate, SR.No.18110 +One cC t M/s.S.Natarjan, Advocate, SR.No.17780 Dpn rl/6 c- 1.7.2011 W.A(MD)No.480 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.3 of 2011 09.06.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/