IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 06.06.2007 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RAJESWARAN W.P.No.14639 of 1996 and WMP.No.20048 and 20049/1996 THE MANAGEMENT OF TNCSC LTD BY PETITIONER SR REGL MANAGER, THANJAVUR Vs 1. Inspector of Labour, (Authority under the T,N. Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act Thanjavur 2. R. VENUGOPALAN 3. D. ASOKAN 4. G. RAJENDRAN 5. G. NEELAMAGAM 6. K.SHANMUGAM 7. G.NARAYANAN 8. S.ANBALAGAN 9. R.ANANDAN 10. V.THAMIZHSELVAN 11. R.MURUGESAN 12. G.PAKKIRISAMY 13. P.VEERAPANDIAN 14. K.KRISHNAMURTHY 15. M.VAIDYANATHAN 16. R.CHANDRASEKARAN 17. S.CHELLADURAI 18. S.CHIDAMBARAM 19. K.PUSHPARAJ 20. M.CHIDAMBARANATHAN 21. A.CHAKRAPANI 22. R.KARTHIKEYAN 23. S.JAYABALAN 24 K.CHELLADURAI 25 T.ARUMUGAM 26 M.KALIAMURTHY 27 S.SELVARAJ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 28 V.JAYABARAN 29 K.RAJALINGAM 30 M.SAMIYAPPAN 31 M.RAMU 32 N.SUBRAMANIAN 33 M.GUNASEKARAN 34 V.SOUNDARARAJAN 35 K.SHANMUGAM 36 C.JAGANATHAN 37 J.IYAPPAN 38 A.AROKKIYAM 39 C.SWAMINATHAN 40 P.RAJENDRAN 41 M.THANGARAJ 42 R.LAKSHMINARAYANAN 43 A.RAJARATHINAM 44 M.SUNDARAMOORTHY 45 K.RAJENDRAN 46 T.ILAYARASAN 47 K.THAVAMANI 48 K.NAGARAJAN 49 C.MARIAPPAN 50 S.JAYAPAL 51 R.GANESAN 52 G.RAJENDRAN 53 N.SUNDARAMOORTHY 54 A.KATHALINGAM 55 J.JAYACHANDRAN 56 G.XAVIER 57 R.GOPAL 58 P.DHARMARAJAN 59 S.GOVINDARAJAN 60 V.GOVINDARAJAN 61 P.AROCKIADAS 62 M.BALASUBRAMANIAN 63 N.KARUNANIDHI 64 V.MURUGAIAN 65 A.JOSEPH 66 V.RAMAIYAN 67 A.MAHALINGAM 68 S.RAVICHANDRAN 69 G.BASKARAN 70 S.THIAGARAJAN 71 U.JAYAKUMAR 72 K.VENKATA NARASIMHAN 73 G.VADUGARAJAN 74 G.RAJENDRAN 75 A.JAYAPAL 76 K.KUNJAPPA https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 77 R.CHANDRASEKARAN 78 R.H V RAMASWAMY 79 R.KRISHNAKUMAR 80 V.JEGANNATHAN 81 M.KARUPPAIYAN 82 A.AROCKIADAS 83 C.SUYAM PARAKADSAM 84 K.DURAIRAJ 85 P.LOGANATHAN 86 T.GOVINDARAJAN 87 R.RAVICHANDRAN 88 S.GNANASEKARAN 89 G.MARUTHAMUTHU 90 N.RAJARAMAN 91 T.SELVANATHAN 92 M.KANDHAIYA 93 T.ADAIKALADAS 94 T.K.SOORIYAMOORTHY 95 G.RAJENDRAN 96 R.THIRUGANANSAMBANDAMURTHY 97 T.SUBRAMANIAN 98 A.PUNNIYAMOORTHY 99 G.JAWAHAR 100 C.GOVINDARAJ 101 G.SIVAKUMAR 102 A.SELVARAJ 103 V.PANNEER 104 T.MADHIAZHAGAN 105 D.JOHN BOSCO 106 Y.VINAYAGAMURTHY 107 K.KARUNANIDHI 108 K.SWAMINATHAN 109 R.RANGARAJAN 110 R.SIVALINGAM 111 S.CHANDRAKUMAR 112 T.NAGARAJAN 113 V.RAJKUMAR 114 S.ARUMUGAM 115 G.MARUTHAIYAN 116 P.BALAIAH 117 J.THOMAS 118 M.MEENAKUMAR 119 S.KRISHNAMOORTHY 120 P.PARAMASIVAM 121 M.MOHAN 122 R.KALIAMURTHY 123 P.RAJASEKARAN 124 N.MANIVELAN 125 G.SHAMUGA SUNDARAM https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 126 C.SEKAR 127 S.RAIMAN 128 M.MARIMUTHU 129 K.S.PANNEER SELVAM 130 R.SEKAR 131 P.RAVI 132 S.MARIMUTHU 133 M.CHINNADURAI 134 V.KOTHANDAPANI 135 M.GOVINDARAJAN 136 V.RAJANGAM 137 G.SEKAR 138 R.GOPAL 139 G.GANESAN 140 S.SELVARAJ 141 S.ANBAZHAGAN 142 V.SENAPATHY 143 G.KANNAN 144 S.VENUGOPALAN 145 V.GUNASEKARAN 146 R.ELANGOVAN 147 N.MAHALINGAM 148 A.GANESAN 149 R.SIVAPRAKASAM 150 S.GANESAN 151 C.BALASUBRAMANIAN 152 R.SUNDARAMOORTHY 153 M THAVISU 154 T.KAMARAJ 155 N.DHARMAN 156 N.RAGHUNATHAN Rep.by General Secretary Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Thozhilalar Sangam, (AITUC) 65, East Raj Veethi, Thanjavur. .... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records in file Rc.No.AA/19146/92 in the office of the first respondent, dated 31st May 1995 issued by the first respondent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Petitioner ... Mr. Meenakshi Sundaram For R1 ... Additional Govt. Pleader[Writ] For R2, R4,R5,R16, R17,R19 to R35 etc., ... M/s.R.Ganesan and V.Gangadharan ORDER The prayer in the writ petition is to call for the records in file Rc.No.AA/19146/92 in the office of the first respondent and issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order No. Rc.No.AA/19146/92 dated 31st May 1995 issued by the first respondent. 2. This writ petition has been filed by Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Thanjavur for the aforesaid relief against the award of the 1st respondent allowing the claim of the respondents 2 to 156 for conferment of permanent status. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. I have also gone through the documents filed in support of the writ petition. 4.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that along with the present writ petition, W.P.No.14640/1996 was filed by the petitioner management challenging the identical award dated 25.3.1995 of the 1st respondent granting similar relief and the same was allowed by this court on 8.3.2004, following the decision of this court. Therefore the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that similar order could be passed in this writ petition also. The learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 156 has also agreed that the present writ petition is identical to the writ petition No.14640/96 and the order passed in that writ petition could be passed in this writ petition also. 5.In W.P.No.14640/96, filed by the very same petitioner against a similar award upholding the claim of 129 workmen for conferment of permanent status, this court held as follows: "3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the question regarding regularisation of such seasonal employees are covered by two Section 12(3) settlements, one of the year 1991 and the other of the year 1997. The first respondent had declined to consider the terms of the 1991 settlement on the ground that the period for which the settlement had to be enforced, had expired and therefore that cannot be taken note of. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that until the other settlement takes its https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ place, the terms of the previous settlement shall apply. A copy of the 1997 settlement has been produced and Clause 5 deals with the demand for giving preference to the qualified seasonal employees in the direct purchase centres while filling the regular vacancies. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this term in the settlement is adhered and that about 34 of the respondent workmen have been regularised and brought under time scale of pay and 64 have been recorded as seasonal workmen. 4.The judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in T.N.C.S.C. Workers' Union vs. T.N.C.S.C. Ltd. & Ors. (1998 1 LLJ 728) was brought to my notice. That case was also between the petitioner Corporation and the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Workers Union. In that case also, the question was regarding the regularisation of seasonal employees on the ground that the petitioners had completed 480 days of service. The Division Bench held that the provisions of Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 will not apply to the petitioner Corporation since direct purchase centres where employees are working are establishments of seasonal character depending on procurement season, and that the provisions of Act do not apply to seasonal employees. 5.The Division Bench also held that such seasonal employees are appointed on adhoc basis and not against sanctioned vacancy and therefore they are not ipso facto entitled to regularisation. In para 20 A, the Division Bench held that as and when vacancy arises, the Corporation is obliged to consider the claim of the qualified seasonal employees pursuant to the settlement reached between them and the workmen under Section 12 (3) of the Act. The copy of the 1997 settlement also shows that this particular union had been a signatory to the settlement since the Signatory No.4 is Thiru S.Chandrakumar, General Secretary who has represented the workers before the first respondent. 6.In view of the Division Bench judgment and recording the statement of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner Corporation would abide by the terms of the settlement and regularise the services of the workmen as and when vacancy arises in terms of the settlement, the impugned order is set aside. The writ petition is allowed. No costs." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6.In view of the above judgment of this court, the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. 7.It is also brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the respondents that all the respondents have been considered and their services have already been regularised in a phased manner and this submission is also recorded. 8.In the result, this writ petition is allowed. No costs. W.M.P.Nos.20048 and 20049 of 1996 are closed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. kua/sks To 1. Inspector of Labour, (Authority under the T,N. Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act Thanjavur W.P.No.14639 of 1996 ppv[co] Gp/20.6 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/