AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Honourable Mr. Justice M. Venugopal
The petitioner-Company has filed the present writ petition for a writ of certiorari in calling for the records of the first respondent in Proceedings
Na.Ka. No. A/8568/05 dated 7.8.2006 and to quash the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the first respondent/Deputy
Chief Inspector of Factories, Division No. II, Housing Unit, Coimbatore has passed the impugned order dated 7.8.2006 by merely mentioning that
nine workmen mentioned in the Annexure to the order should be made permanent after completion of 480 days of service in a period of 24
calendar months.
The plea of the petitioner is that as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to
Workmen) Act, 1981, only an individual workman or group of workmen can invoke the jurisdiction of the first respondent and there is no enabling
provision for a trade unit to seek permanent status on behalf of its members. Also that, as per Rules 3 and 4 of the said Act, the first respondent is
empowered to inspect the records and forms maintained by the Management and require the employer to supply him any document or information
pertaining to the said Act. Rule 6 of the said Act enjoins that an employer is expected to maintain a register of workmen and Form 01 for perusal
by the Inspector having jurisdiction over the establishment. Therefore, the contention on the side of the petitioners is that the first
respondent/Authority should hold an enquiry and inspect the records of the Management before according permanent status to any workman. Also
that one of the workman viz. M. Rangarajan left the services of the petitioner-Company under Voluntary Retirement Scheme.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the first respondent, without holding a proper enquiry in terms of Section 4 of the Tamil
Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981, passed the impugned order dated 7.8.2006 merely
mentioning that nine workmen should be made permanent after completion of 480 days in a period of 24 calendar months.
It is to be borne in mind that a workman, who has put in a continuous service of 480 days in a 24 calendar months, ought to be confirmed with
the permanent status in an establishment, as opined by this Court. Further more, if an employee''s name does not find a place in the list or an entry
has not been made correct as regards his service, then he can make a representation to the concerned Inspector, who after perusing/examining the
representation and after making such enquiries, can issue appropriate directions to an employer for rectification of register of workman or for
passing an order granting permanent status to the workman concerned. On going through the impugned order of the first respondent dated
7.8.2006, it is clear that the Authorities have analysed the documents produced by both sides and has passed a reasoned order for granting
permanent status to nine workers, since they have worked for more than 480 days in a period of 24 calendar months and the said permanent
status has been accorded to nine workmen from the date of their joining service. Therefore, when the first respondent has scrutinised and
appreciated the records produced by both sides and has passed a considered and speaking order, granting permanent status to nine workers, (as
made mention of in the Annexure to the said impugned order dated 7.8.2006), then this Court holds that the writ petition is devoid of merits, for
the simple reason that there is no material irregularity or any patent illegality in the order passed by the first respondent, warranting interference in
writ jurisdiction. Viewed in that perspective, the writ petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected M.P. is also dismissed. However,
there shall be no order as to costs.