{ "metadata": { "analysis_of_arguments": "The petitioners contended that the workers were contract laborers, so any dispute about permanency should be adjudicated under separate enactments. They argued that the Labour Court exceeded its jurisdiction. The workers maintained that they had completed the requisite service days and met the criteria for permanent status.", "bench": [ "The Hon\u0027ble Mr. Justice M. Dhandapani" ], "case_number": [ "WP No. 802 of 2012", "WMP No. 1 of 2012" ], "cases_referred": [ "W.A.Nos.273 \u0026 275 of 2020, dated 20.01.2023", "W.P.No.4061 of 2013, dated 07.03.2022", "The Chairman vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 4 February, 2025" ], "chunkwise_data": { "chunk_1": { "analysis_of_arguments": "The petitioners contended that the workers were contract laborers, so any dispute about permanency should be adjudicated under separate enactments. They argued that the Labour Court exceeded its jurisdiction. The workers maintained that they had completed the requisite service days and met the criteria for permanent status.", "cases_referred": [ "W.A.Nos.273 \u0026 275 of 2020, dated 20.01.2023", "W.P.No.4061 of 2013, dated 07.03.2022" ], "facts": "Certain workers engaged by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB) claimed to have completed sufficient service days to be conferred permanent status. They approached the Labour Inspector, who directed the TNEB to confer permanent status upon them. The TNEB contended that these individuals were contract laborers and challenged the order before the High Court. Before reaching the High Court, the dispute had been adjudicated by the Labour Court, which ruled in favor of the workers, leading to the present Writ Petition challenging that ruling.", "final_status": "Allowed", "formatted_summary": "In this section, the High Court considered a writ petition filed by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB) challenging the Labour Court\u2019s order which conferred permanent status to certain contract workers. The court held that the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction to grant permanent status under the 1981 Act and set aside the order. The workers were allowed to raise their claims under the appropriate legal framework, either under the Contract Labour Act or Industrial Disputes Act. The writ petition was accordingly allowed.", "held": "The High Court set aside the Labour Court\u2019s order for lack of jurisdiction and granted liberty to the workers to raise their claims under the appropriate legislation. The petition was allowed, and future disputes on permanency were directed to the proper forum.", "latin_principles": {}, "legal_issues": "1) Whether the Labour Court had jurisdiction under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981, to grant permanent status. 2) Whether the workers\u2019 claims should be determined under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, or the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.", "statutes": { "Article 226 of the Constitution of India": "Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 3rd respondent, relation to his proceedings in the Na.Ka.No.E/3216/2008, dated 29.09.2009 directing the petitioner to confer permanent status to the respondents 4 to 19 as workers in TANGEDCO/Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle/Chennai and quash the same as illegal.", "Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970": "3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the private respondents/workmen are contractor labourers and their claim can be adjudicated either under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 or under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the present case, the third respondent/Labour Court, without jurisdiction, adjudicated the issue under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981, which is not sustainable. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of this Court in W.A.Nos.273 \u0026 275 of 2020, dated 20.01.2023. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the above writ petition.", "Industrial Disputes Act, 1947": "3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the private respondents/workmen are contractor labourers and their claim can be adjudicated either under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 or under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the present case, the third respondent/Labour Court, without jurisdiction, adjudicated the issue under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981, which is not sustainable. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of this Court in W.A.Nos.273 \u0026 275 of 2020, dated 20.01.2023. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the above writ petition.", "Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981": "2. The case of the petitioner is that, the private respondents/workmen filed claim petitions under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 (in short \u0027the Act\u0027) before the third https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis respondent/Labour Court. The private respondents are contract labourers under the control of the Superintending Engineer/TANGEDCO/Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle, West/Chennai and they had put in a service of 480 days within a continuous period of 24 calendar months and therefore, they are entitled for conferment of permanent status. The third respondent/Labour Court, inadvertently adjudicated the issue and passed award in favour of the private respondents/workmen that their claim can be entertained in terms of Section 3 of the Act. Challenging the same, the above writ petition has been filed." } }, "chunk_2": { "analysis_of_arguments": "No arguments from either party are referenced in the provided text.", "cases_referred": [ "The Chairman vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 4 February, 2025" ], "facts": "The document only provides the case caption and the date, without detailing any factual background or procedural history.", "final_status": "No information about the final status is provided.", "formatted_summary": "The excerpt provides only a case title and date, without presenting any factual context, legal issues, arguments, or outcome.", "held": "No decision or holding is mentioned.", "latin_principles": {}, "legal_issues": "No legal issues are discernible from the available text.", "statutes": {} } }, "counsels": [ "Mr.Anand Gopalan for M/s.T.S.Gopalan \u0026 Co. (for Petitioners)", "Mr.Bindran, Additional Government Pleader (for Respondent Nos.1 \u0026 2)" ], "delivered_date": "04.02.2025", "facts": "Certain workers engaged by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB) claimed to have completed sufficient service days to be conferred permanent status. They approached the Labour Inspector, who directed the TNEB to confer permanent status upon them. The TNEB contended that these individuals were contract laborers and challenged the order before the High Court. Before reaching the High Court, the dispute had been adjudicated by the Labour Court, which ruled in favor of the workers, leading to the present Writ Petition challenging that ruling.", "final_status": "Allowed", "first_party": [ "1. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai \u2013 2", "2. The Chief Engineer/Personnel, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, VII Floor, No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai \u2013 2", "3. The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle/North, 791, Anna Salai, Chennai \u2013 2", "4. The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, CEDC/Central, Valluvarkottam SS Complex, Nungambakkam, Chennai \u2013 600 034", "5. The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle/West, Thirumangalam SS Complex, Anna Nagar, Chennai \u2013 40" ], "grouped_statutes": { "Article 226 of the Constitution of India": [ "Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 3rd respondent, relation to his proceedings in the Na.Ka.No.E/3216/2008, dated 29.09.2009 directing the petitioner to confer permanent status to the respondents 4 to 19 as workers in TANGEDCO/Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle/Chennai and quash the same as illegal." ], "Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970": [ "3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the private respondents/workmen are contractor labourers and their claim can be adjudicated either under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 or under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the present case, the third respondent/Labour Court, without jurisdiction, adjudicated the issue under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981, which is not sustainable. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of this Court in W.A.Nos.273 \u0026 275 of 2020, dated 20.01.2023. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the above writ petition." ], "Industrial Disputes Act, 1947": [ "3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the private respondents/workmen are contractor labourers and their claim can be adjudicated either under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 or under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the present case, the third respondent/Labour Court, without jurisdiction, adjudicated the issue under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981, which is not sustainable. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of this Court in W.A.Nos.273 \u0026 275 of 2020, dated 20.01.2023. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the above writ petition." ], "Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981": [ "2. The case of the petitioner is that, the private respondents/workmen filed claim petitions under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 (in short \u0027the Act\u0027) before the third https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis respondent/Labour Court. The private respondents are contract labourers under the control of the Superintending Engineer/TANGEDCO/Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle, West/Chennai and they had put in a service of 480 days within a continuous period of 24 calendar months and therefore, they are entitled for conferment of permanent status. The third respondent/Labour Court, inadvertently adjudicated the issue and passed award in favour of the private respondents/workmen that their claim can be entertained in terms of Section 3 of the Act. Challenging the same, the above writ petition has been filed." ] }, "held": "The High Court set aside the Labour Court\u2019s order for lack of jurisdiction and granted liberty to the workers to raise their claims under the appropriate legislation. The petition was allowed, and future disputes on permanency were directed to the proper forum.", "latin_principles": {}, "legal_issues": [ "Whether the Labour Court had jurisdiction under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981, to grant permanent status", "Whether the workers\u2019 claims should be determined under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, or the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947." ], "prayer": "Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 3rd respondent, relation to his proceedings in the Na.Ka.No.E/3216/2008, dated 29.09.2009 directing the petitioner to confer permanent status to the respondents 4 to 19 as workers in TANGEDCO/Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle/Chennai and quash the same as illegal.", "reserved_date": null, "second_party": [ "1. The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Energy Department, Chennai \u2013 9", "2. The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Labour and Employment Department, Chennai \u2013 9", "3. The Inspector of Labour, III Circle, Nandanam, Chennai \u2013 35", "4. T.Lawrence", "5. R.Muthukumar", "6. G.Bharathi", "7. A.Gandhi", "8. P.Gantharao", "9. S.Saravana Prabu", "10. P.Yoga Lakshmi", "11. P.M.Saravanan", "12. R.Thamaraiselvi", "13. T.Prabu", "14. R.Muthukumar", "15. M.Elangovan", "16. P.Balaji", "17. R.Dhanalakshmi", "18. B.Vani Shree", "19. G.Rajesh" ], "statutes": { "Article 226 of the Constitution of India": "Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 3rd respondent, relation to his proceedings in the Na.Ka.No.E/3216/2008, dated 29.09.2009 directing the petitioner to confer permanent status to the respondents 4 to 19 as workers in TANGEDCO/Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle/Chennai and quash the same as illegal.", "Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970": "3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the private respondents/workmen are contractor labourers and their claim can be adjudicated either under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 or under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the present case, the third respondent/Labour Court, without jurisdiction, adjudicated the issue under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981, which is not sustainable. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of this Court in W.A.Nos.273 \u0026 275 of 2020, dated 20.01.2023. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the above writ petition.", "Industrial Disputes Act, 1947": "3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the private respondents/workmen are contractor labourers and their claim can be adjudicated either under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 or under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the present case, the third respondent/Labour Court, without jurisdiction, adjudicated the issue under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981, which is not sustainable. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of this Court in W.A.Nos.273 \u0026 275 of 2020, dated 20.01.2023. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the above writ petition.", "Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981": "2. The case of the petitioner is that, the private respondents/workmen filed claim petitions under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 (in short \u0027the Act\u0027) before the third https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis respondent/Labour Court. The private respondents are contract labourers under the control of the Superintending Engineer/TANGEDCO/Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle, West/Chennai and they had put in a service of 480 days within a continuous period of 24 calendar months and therefore, they are entitled for conferment of permanent status. The third respondent/Labour Court, inadvertently adjudicated the issue and passed award in favour of the private respondents/workmen that their claim can be entertained in terms of Section 3 of the Act. Challenging the same, the above writ petition has been filed." }, "statutes_headnotes": { "Article 226 of the Constitution of India": "\u2014 Writ of Certiorari \u2014 Labour Court\u2019s jurisdiction \u2014 Conferring permanent status on contract workers \u2014 TNEB challenged Labour Court\u2019s order contending claims must be adjudicated under Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 or Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 \u2014 Held, Labour Court lacked jurisdiction under Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 \u2014 Order set aside \u2014 Workers at liberty to raise claims before appropriate forum \u2014 Petition allowed.", "Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970": "\u2014 Conferring Permanent Status \u2014 Jurisdiction \u2014 Contract Labourers \u2014 Whether Labour Court has jurisdiction to grant permanent status under Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 \u2014 Held, No \u2014 Dispute to be raised under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, or the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 \u2014 Labour Court\u2019s order set aside for lack of jurisdiction \u2014 Petition allowed \u2014 Liberty granted to workers to approach appropriate forum.", "Industrial Disputes Act, 1947": "\u2014 Contract Labourers \u2014 Conferment of permanent status \u2014 Whether Labour Court had jurisdiction under Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 \u2014 Workers claimed requisite service days \u2014 Held, Labour Court lacked jurisdiction \u2014 Proper remedy lies under Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 or Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 \u2014 Labour Court\u2019s order set aside \u2014 Petition allowed.", "Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981": "\u2014 Jurisdiction of Labour Court \u2014 Contract labourers claimed permanent status under Section 3 \u2014 Workers completed 480 days in 24 months \u2014 Labour Court granted permanency \u2014 High Court held Labour Court lacks jurisdiction under 1981 Act \u2014 Directed workers to approach proper forum under Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 or Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 \u2014 Order of Labour Court set aside \u2014 Writ Petition allowed." } }, "summary": { "formatted_summary": "The High Court considered a writ petition by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board challenging a Labour Court order conferring permanent status on contract workers. The court held that the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction under the 1981 Act and set aside the order, allowing workers to raise their claims under the Contract Labour Act or the Industrial Disputes Act. The petition was allowed. Another case reference, The Chairman vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 4 February, 2025, was noted without additional factual details." } }