T.S.Shanmuganathan v. The Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, I Division Teynampet, Chennai – 600 006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 05.02.2008Coram :THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVIRAJA PANDIANandTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE CHITRA VENKATARAMANWrit Appeal No.914 of 20071. T.S.Shanmuganathan2. A.Melwyn Thomas3. P.John Britto4. P.balasubramanian5. D.Baskaran6. M.Veerappan7. K.balasubramani8. T.Jogindra Kumar9. V.Kumar10. J.Arun11. I.Rajendran12. K.Potharaja13. J.S.Chandrasekar Appellants/Respondents 2,3,5 to 9,11 to 16vs.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 & PetitionerPrayer: Writ Appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patentagainst the order of the learned single Judge of this Court dated25.9.2006 made in W.P.No.32392 of 2005 presented under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling forthe records of the first respondent in proceedings No.A/4852/04 andquash its order dated 21.02.2005.For Appellants:Mr.S.AyyaduraiFor Respondents:Mr.S.Ravindranfor 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 thelearned single Judge dated 25.09.2006 made in W.P.No.32392 of 2005,modifying the order of the first respondent – Deputy Chief Inspectorof Factories, I Division, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 006, made in hisproceedings No.A/4852/04 dated 21.2.2005 to the effect that theappellants were to be conferred with permanent status with effect from1.3.2002, 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 hascontended that after completion of the period of training of twoyears, the appellants ought to have been absorbed in permanentemployment. However, the second respondent offered a tenure employmentas Technician Grade II for a period of three years, which isimpermissible in law. That aspect of the matter has not beenconsidered in a proper perspective by the learned single Judge inmodifying the order of the first respondent.3. On the other hand, Mr.Ravindran, learned counsel appearing forthe second respondent has argued for sustaining the order of thelearned single Judge.4. We have the argument of the learned counsel on either side andperused the materials on record. 5. The second respondent Company engaged the appellants astrainees for a period of two years from February, 1999. Aftercompletion of the period of training, if the concerned workman wasadequately equipped, the second respondent used to engage himpermanently on consolidated wages and allowances in line with what ispaid to the regular Grade employees. During the year 2001-2002, asthe second respondent company was in heavy loss, in order to sustainand consolidate its operation given an option to the trainees eitherto exit the training programme without any penalty by waiving theservice bond or accept the appointment on fixed term basis. Theappellants have accepted the offer of engagement of fixed term, whichis evident from the willingness offered by the appellants dated14.2.2002. Thus, the appellants accepted the offer of engagement witheffect from 1.3.2002. After the expiry of the fixed period of threeyears term, the appellants were again engaged for another fixed periodof three years commencing from 1.3.2002, which was also accepted bythe appellants. The appellants are continuing in service. In additionto the consolidated wages, the appellants are all given allowances andother facilities including medical reimbursement, Leave TravelConcession and reimbursement of various expenses, insurance policy andother amenities like subsidy, rent, coat, uniform etc. While that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ being so, the appellants invoked the provision of Tamil NaduIndustrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status) Act, 1981seeking for the relief from the first respondent to confer thempermanent status in accordance with Section 3 of the Act aftercompletion of 480 days of service from the date of their joining astrainee. The first respondent by his proceedings dated 21.02.2005,recording the stand of the second respondent that the appellants arepermanent, further observed that after completion of two years ofservice, the appellants would have deemed to have been grantedpermanent status. When that order is put in issue before this Court,the learned single Judge modified the same that the appellants wouldbe conferred with permanent status with effect from 1.3.2002. 6. We do not find any irregularity in the order passed by thelearned single Judge. Firstly the appellants have accepted the termsand conditions stipulated in the appointment order and allowed theperiod for which they were appointed lapsed by efflux of time. Inthose circumstances of the case, it is not possible for the appellantsto contend otherwise to the effect that the tenure or periodemployment is not legal. The Supreme Court in the case of KALPATARUVIDYA SAMASTHE (R) AND ANOTHER VS. S.B.GUPTA AND ANOTHER reported in(2005) 7 SCC 524, wherein an Assistant Professor appointed oncondition that he would be on probation for one year whereafter thesame would be reviewed before the expiry of probation period, theAssistant Professor was relieved from service, but re-appointed onprobation once again, for six months with a condition that the saidappointment was purely temporary. The Assistant Professor did notchallenge his fresh appointment for six months only, however raisedgrievance before the Tribunal after the expiry of the probationaryperiod. When that issue went up to the Supreme Court, the SupremeCourt has held that "...7. It is now a well-settled principle of law thatthe appointment made on probation/adhoc for a specificperiod of time and such appointment comes to an end byefflux of time and the person holding such post can haveno 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 Courtconsidered the identical question and held in para 20 ofthe judgment as under: (SCC p.37)"20. Because the six months' period wascoming to an end on 28-2-1991, she preferred thewrit petition a few days before and prayed formandamus which was granted by the learned Judgeunder the impugned judgment. The question iswhether the directions are valid in law. To ourmind, it is clear that where the appointment iscontractual and by efflux of time, theappointment comes to an end, the respondent couldhave no right to continue in the post. Once this https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ conclusion is arrived at, what requires to beexamined is, in view of the services of therespondent being continued from time to time on'adhoc' basis for more than a year whether she isentitled to regularisation? The answer should bein the negative."8. In the instant case, as noticed above, therespondent has accepted the appointment including theterms and conditions stipulated in clause 11 of theappointment order and rejoined the post from 4-9-1995 andcontinued in the post up to 29-2-1996 on which date theperiod of six months came to an end. He raised grievancesbefore Tribunal after the probationary period came to anend by efflux of time. Having accepted the terms andconditions stipulated in the appointment order and allowedthe period for which he was appointed to have been lapsedby efflux of time, he is not permitted to turn his backand say that the appointment was dehors the Rules or theterms and conditions stipulated in the appointment, werenot legally valid."The above decision stares at the appellants to contend otherwise.7. Further, it is an admitted case that the appellants wereengaged by the second respondent as trainee for a period of two years.After the completion of the period of two years as a trainee, thefirst respondent directed the second respondent to confer thempermanent status. The Division Bench of this Court in the case ofMETAL POWDER COMPANY LIMITED, TIRUMANGALAM AND ANOTHER VS. THE STATEOF TAMIL NADU AND ANOTHER reported in 1985(II) LLN 376 has held thatan 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 NaduIndustrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workman)Act, 1981.8. In the fore-going circumstances, we are of the considered viewthat the learned single Judge is right in modifying the order of thestatutory authority by directing the second respondent to conferpermanent status to the appellants from 1.3.2002 onwards. Hence, thewrit 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.Registrarusk https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ToThe Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, I DivisionTeynampetChennai – 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