IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 05.02.2008 Coram : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE CHITRA VENKATARAMAN Writ Appeal No.914 of 2007 1. T.S.Shanmuganathan 2. A.Melwyn Thomas 3. P.John Britto 4. P.balasubramanian 5. D.Baskaran 6. M.Veerappan 7. K.balasubramani 8. T.Jogindra Kumar 9. V.Kumar 10. J.Arun 11. I.Rajendran 12. K.Potharaja 13. J.S.Chandrasekar Appellants/Respondents 2,3,5 to 9,11 to 16 vs. 1. The Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, I Division Teynampet, Chennai – 600 006. 2. Manali Petro Chemicals Limited represented by its Company Secretary Ponneri High Road, Manali Chennai – 600 068. Respondents/1st Respondent & Petitioner Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of the learned single Judge of this Court dated 25.9.2006 made in W.P.No.32392 of 2005 presented under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the first respondent in proceedings No.A/4852/04 and quash its order dated 21.02.2005. For Appellants : Mr.S.Ayyadurai For Respondents : Mr.S.Ravindran for M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co., for R2 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN, J.) The appellants/workmen in this appeal assailed the order of the learned single Judge dated 25.09.2006 made in W.P.No.32392 of 2005, modifying the order of the first respondent – Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, I Division, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 006, made in his proceedings No.A/4852/04 dated 21.2.2005 to the effect that the appellants were to be conferred with permanent status with effect from 1.3.2002, instead, on completion of the training period of two years, as directed by the first respondent. 2. Mr.Ayyadurai, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has contended that after completion of the period of training of two years, the appellants ought to have been absorbed in permanent employment. However, the second respondent offered a tenure employment as Technician Grade II for a period of three years, which is impermissible in law. That aspect of the matter has not been considered in a proper perspective by the learned single Judge in modifying the order of the first respondent. 3. On the other hand, Mr.Ravindran, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent has argued for sustaining the order of the learned single Judge. 4. We have the argument of the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials on record. 5. The second respondent Company engaged the appellants as trainees for a period of two years from February, 1999. After completion of the period of training, if the concerned workman was adequately equipped, the second respondent used to engage him permanently on consolidated wages and allowances in line with what is paid to the regular Grade employees. During the year 2001-2002, as the second respondent company was in heavy loss, in order to sustain and consolidate its operation given an option to the trainees either to exit the training programme without any penalty by waiving the service bond or accept the appointment on fixed term basis. The appellants have accepted the offer of engagement of fixed term, which is evident from the willingness offered by the appellants dated 14.2.2002. Thus, the appellants accepted the offer of engagement with effect from 1.3.2002. After the expiry of the fixed period of three years term, the appellants were again engaged for another fixed period of three years commencing from 1.3.2002, which was also accepted by the appellants. The appellants are continuing in service. In addition to the consolidated wages, the appellants are all given allowances and other facilities including medical reimbursement, Leave Travel Concession and reimbursement of various expenses, insurance policy and other amenities like subsidy, rent, coat, uniform etc. While that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ being so, the appellants invoked the provision of Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status) Act, 1981 seeking for the relief from the first respondent to confer them permanent status in accordance with Section 3 of the Act after completion of 480 days of service from the date of their joining as trainee. The first respondent by his proceedings dated 21.02.2005, recording the stand of the second respondent that the appellants are permanent, further observed that after completion of two years of service, the appellants would have deemed to have been granted permanent status. When that order is put in issue before this Court, the learned single Judge modified the same that the appellants would be conferred with permanent status with effect from 1.3.2002. 6. We do not find any irregularity in the order passed by the learned single Judge. Firstly the appellants have accepted the terms and conditions stipulated in the appointment order and allowed the period for which they were appointed lapsed by efflux of time. In those circumstances of the case, it is not possible for the appellants to contend otherwise to the effect that the tenure or period employment is not legal. The Supreme Court in the case of KALPATARU VIDYA SAMASTHE (R) AND ANOTHER VS. S.B.GUPTA AND ANOTHER reported in (2005) 7 SCC 524, wherein an Assistant Professor appointed on condition that he would be on probation for one year whereafter the same would be reviewed before the expiry of probation period, the Assistant Professor was relieved from service, but re-appointed on probation once again, for six months with a condition that the said appointment was purely temporary. The Assistant Professor did not challenge his fresh appointment for six months only, however raised grievance before the Tribunal after the expiry of the probationary period. When that issue went up to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court has held that "...7. It is now a well-settled principle of law that the appointment made on probation/adhoc for a specific period of time and such appointment comes to an end by efflux of time and the person holding such post can have no right to continue in the post. In the case of Director, Institute of management Development v. Pushpa Srivatsava ((1992) 4 SCC 33), a three-Judge Bench of this Court considered the identical question and held in para 20 of the judgment as under: (SCC p.37) "20. Because the six months' period was coming to an end on 28-2-1991, she preferred the writ petition a few days before and prayed for mandamus which was granted by the learned Judge under the impugned judgment. The question is whether the directions are valid in law. To our mind, it is clear that where the appointment is contractual and by efflux of time, the appointment comes to an end, the respondent could have no right to continue in the post. Once this https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ conclusion is arrived at, what requires to be examined is, in view of the services of the respondent being continued from time to time on 'adhoc' basis for more than a year whether she is entitled to regularisation? The answer should be in the negative." 8. In the instant case, as noticed above, the respondent has accepted the appointment including the terms and conditions stipulated in clause 11 of the appointment order and rejoined the post from 4-9-1995 and continued in the post up to 29-2-1996 on which date the period of six months came to an end. He raised grievances before Tribunal after the probationary period came to an end by efflux of time. Having accepted the terms and conditions stipulated in the appointment order and allowed the period for which he was appointed to have been lapsed by efflux of time, he is not permitted to turn his back and say that the appointment was dehors the Rules or the terms and conditions stipulated in the appointment, were not legally valid." The above decision stares at the appellants to contend otherwise. 7. Further, it is an admitted case that the appellants were engaged by the second respondent as trainee for a period of two years. After the completion of the period of two years as a trainee, the first respondent directed the second respondent to confer them permanent status. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of METAL POWDER COMPANY LIMITED, TIRUMANGALAM AND ANOTHER VS. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANOTHER reported in 1985(II) LLN 376 has held that an apprentice or a badli worker could not be included in the word "workman" referred to in Section 3(1)and 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workman) Act, 1981. 8. In the fore-going circumstances, we are of the considered view that the learned single Judge is right in modifying the order of the statutory authority by directing the second respondent to confer permanent status to the appellants from 1.3.2002 onwards. Hence, the writ appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected M.P.No.2 of 2007 is also dismissed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar usk https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To The Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, I Division Teynampet Chennai – 600 006. 1 cc To Mr.T.S.Gopalan & co., Advocate, SR.5533. 1 cc To Mr.S.Ayyathurai, Advocate, SR.5618. WA.No.914 of 2007 NG(CO) RVL 19.02.2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/