1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.(MD)No.13031 of 2011 I.Palanivel Rajan ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The Chief Engineer, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, Tuticorin Thermal Power Station, Tuticorin- 628 004. 2. The Superintendent Engineer, Purchase and Administration, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, Tuticorin Thermal Power Station, Tuticorin-628 004. 3. The Chief Engineer (Personal), Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai- 600 002. 4. The Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, Subbaiahmudaliar Puram, 4th Street, Tuticorin. ... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the impugned records of the fourth respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.E/1381/2010 dated 14.09.2011 and to quash the same and consequently directing the respondents 1 to 3 to absorb the petitioner as helper in the first respondent Corporation with permanent status in the light of W.A.No.311 of 2004 dated 17.11.2008. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Saji Bino For R1 to R3 : Mr.C.Selvaraj For R4 : Mr.T.R.Janarthanan, Additional Government Pleader O R D E R The petitioner has come to this Court aggrieved by the order passed by the fourth respondent, the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, Tuticorin in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.E/1381/2010 dated 14.09.2011 and to quash the same and consequently directing the respondents 1 to 3 to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 absorb the petitioner as helper in the first respondent Corporation with permanent status in the light of W.A.No.311 of 2004, dated 17.11.2008. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was originally appointed as a helper in the first respondent Corporation on 05.04.1997. From the date of joining, he has also completed 480 days as on 19.08.1999. But on 27.10.1999, he was terminated from service. Along with the petitioner several other persons were also terminated. However, without the petitioner, the other similarly placed persons approached the Deputy Inspector of Factories, Tirunelveli, under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (conferment of permanent status to workmen) Act 1981. The Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, Tirunelveli in his proceedings in Roc.No.A1/3266/2000 dated 02.01.2001, allowed the application filed by similarly placed contract labourers, by giving a direction to the first respondent to appoint the co-contract labourers as permanent workers in the Tuticorin Thermal Power Station, Tuticorin. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondents 1 to 3 approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition No.9729 of 2007 and this Court, considering the correctness of the order passed by the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, Tirunelveli, dismissed the writ petition filed by the respondents 1 to 3. Again, the said order was taken up in Writ Appeal No.311 of 2004 unsuccessfully and the same was also dismissed by order dated 17.11.2008. As a result, the respondents 1 to 3 were directed to implement the order passed by the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories. Since the other co-contract labourers were taken back in service, on the basis of the order, the petitioner also approached the Deputy Inspector of Factories, Tuticorin, by moving an application on 09.06.2010. The said application was rejected by order dated 14.09.2011. As against that, the petitioner has come to this Court challenging the soundness of the order passed therein. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner while making the submission has argued that in the impugned order it is mentioned that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner and the respondents 1 to 3 for giving the benefit of conferment of permanent status. The said reasoning given by the fourth respondent is not legally sustainable. When similarly placed co-contractors approached the very same authority for the same relief, a direction was given to confer the permanent status, but in the case of the petitioner, the fourth respondent has erroneously given a finding stating that there was no relationship of employer and employee for giving the benefit of conferment of permanent status. On that basis, the petitioner prayed for setting aside the impugned order. 4. Mr.T.R.Janarthanan, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the fourth respondent. 5. The case of similarity between the petitioner and the other co- contract labourers, in approaching the fourth respondent on 28.10.1999 is different one. When the co-contract labourers, who were terminated by the first respondent Corporation in the year 1999 had moved an application before the fourth respondent the same was considered on 02.01.2001 by giving the benefit of conferment of permanent status to other persons about 10 years ago even after the end of employment contract between the employer and employee. Admittedly when they were terminated from service https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 on 28.10.1999, they approached only on 29.08.2000. Even in that case also there was no relationship of employer and employee on the date of making application on 29.08.2000. But the other co-contract labourers approached the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, Tuticorin in time and without an inordinate delay of 10 years like the petitioner, who slept over his rights. Therefore, their application seeking conferment of permanent status was accepted and that order dated 02.01.2001 was confirmed by this Court in W.P.No.9229 of 2007 and in W.A.No.311 of 2004 on 17.11.2008. But the fact remains in the present case is completely different from the one which was considered by the fourth respondent. In the case of the co- contract labourers, who were terminated from service of the first respondent on 28.10.1999, as I mentioned above, they immediately approached the fourth respondent by filing an application on 29.08.2000. But in the case of the petitioner, he was terminated from service on 27.10.1999, but he remained silent for about 11 years and only on 09.06.2010, the petitioner has approached the fourth respondent, who rightly dismissed his claim as not maintainable. 6. In that view of the matter, this Court by finding that the case of the petitioner is hopelessly barred by limitation, declines to interfere with the same, accordingly the writ petition fails. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. akv Sd/- Assistant Registrar[T&P] /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Chief Engineer, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, Tuticorin Thermal Power Station, Tuticorin- 628 004. 2. The Superintendent Engineer, Purchase and Administration, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, Tuticorin Thermal Power Station, Tuticorin-628 004. 3. The Chief Engineer (Personal), Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai- 600 002. 4. The Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, Subbaiahmudaliar Puram, 4th Street, Tuticorin. +1cc to M/s.C.Selvaraj, Advocate SR.No.40177. W.P.(MD)No.13031 of 2011 Dated:16.11.2011 3P/6C RPB : 07.12.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/