(Prayer: To set aside the order dated 26.06.25 in W.A.(MD). No. 1334 of 2019 and to restore the writ appeal W.A.(MD). No. 1334 of 2019.)

N. Dilip Kumar, J.

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed by Mr.T. Savadamuthu, who is the second respondent in W.A.(MD) No.1334 of 2019, which was finally decided on merits by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 26.06.2025.

2. Claiming that his counsel was held up in another Court, on 18.06.2025, when the said writ appeal was taken up for final hearing, the present application has been filed with a prayer to recall of the order dated 26.06.2025 passed in W.A.(MD) No.1334 of 2019 and allow him to make submissions on the merits of the matter.

3. This Court heard Mr. Balan Haridoss representing Mr.P.Arunachalam for the petitioner and Mr.M.Mahaboob Athiff, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.

4. The facts necessary for the disposal of the present Civil Miscellaneous Petition is as follows: -

                     i) The petitioner, Mr.T. Savadamuthu filed a petition on 06.08.2013 before the Inspector of Labour/the authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act (46/1981) on the premise that he was originally engaged as a daily wager for operating the Overhead Tank in Eriyodu Town Panchayat on 01.09.1996. During the period from 01.09.1996 to 31.08.1998, he had completed the requirement of 480 working days and is therefore eligible for conferment of permanent status. He would also contend that he was being paid only a consolidated pay of Rs.3,000/-. This application was admittedly filed only in 2013 i.e., nearly after 15 years from the period when the petitioner, T. Savadamuthu, claims to have completed the 480 working days.

                     ii) The said application was opposed by the Town Panchayat on the premise that Mr.T. Savadamuthu was neither employed as a daily wager nor engaged on consolidated pay. Rather, given the nature of Overhead Tank Operator job being limited in time and restricted in operations, a conscious policy decision was taken by the Government and was implemented across the local bodies to outsource the same. Accordingly, the said work was entrusted by way of Tender Notifications issued in the year 2013-14 and 2014-15. The petitioner Mr.T. Savadamuthu was the successful tenderer and was issued with orders on 06.03.2013 and 05.04.2014 for those respective years, whereunder he had agreed to perform this duty for a consolidated amount of Rs.3,000/- and Rs.4,000/- respectively and thus, the nature of relationship between the Town Panchayat and Mr.T. Savadamuthu is contractual and there is no employer-employee relationship between them.

                     iii) The Town Panchayat also raised a plea that the supply of water to the residents is one of the essential functions of any local authority and this cannot be treated as any industrial output or a manufacturing process attracting the definition of either an Industrial Establishment or a Commercial Shop or a Factory, and in this context, the Town Panchayat can never be brought under the purview of the Tamil Nadu Act 46 of 1981.

                     iv) The Inspector of Labour, vide order dated 07.09.2017, allowed the said application and ordered the Conferment of Permanent Status upon Mr.T. Savadamuthu.

                     v) This was put to challenge by the Eriyodu Town Panchayat before the learned single Judge of this Court in WP(MD) No.1971 of 2017 and it was dismissed on 17.01.2018. This order of the Learned Single Judge was put to challenge in W.A.(MD) No.1334 of 2019. The case was taken up for final hearing on 18.06.2025 and on that day, the learned counsel for Mr.T. Savadamuthu was absent. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court, after taking note of the factual matrix and also the applicable law and also upon perusal of the materials available on record, was satisfied that the activities of the Town Panchayat can never be brought under the purview of Tamil Nadu Act 46 of 1981 and also noticed that Mr.T. Savadamuthu was not a workman entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Act 46 of 1981 and he having been a tenderer and a successful participant in the tender process and having agreed to perform the part-time job of operating Overhead Tank which will be restricted for a very limited period in the morning and evening can never be held entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Act 46 of 1981. The Court on merits also concluded that the order of the learned single Judge is liable to be set aside and accordingly allowed the writ appeal.

5. Mr.Balan Haridoss learned counsel appearing for Mr.T.Savadamuthu submitted that the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD) No.1334 of 2019 having been passed without an opportunity having been extended to the learned counsel for Mr.T.Savadamuthu to advance his arguments should be recalled and he should be allowed to canvass the merits of the matter.

6. This argument does not inspire our confidence. The absence of the learned counsel of Mr.T. Savadamuthu on 18.06.2025 when the case was taken up for final hearing is a lapse only on the part of Mr.T. Savadamuthu and the Court cannot be blamed for proceeding to decide the case on its merits. The case was reserved on 18.06.2025 and orders were pronounced only on 26.06.2025.

7. The learned counsel for Mr.T. Savadamuthu had not taken efforts to make a request before the Court immediately on 18.06.2025 or before 26.06.2025 when the order was reserved and finally pronounced. Even this restoration application was filed only on 25.07.2025 and numbered on 29.08.2025.

8. If at all the petitioner, Mr.T. Savadamuthu, is aggrieved against the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of this court in W.A.(MD) No.1334 of 2019, which is on merits, his remedy is only to pursue further remedy as provided under law before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and not to file an application to restore W.A.(MD) No.1334 of 2019.

9. Since we are of the opinion that the present Civil Miscellaneous Petition is not maintainable, we have not recorded the submissions made by the learned counsel for Mr.T.Savadamuthu on the factual merits, as the same would amount to allowing the petitioner, Mr.T.Savadamuthu, to reargue the writ appeal, which is already decided.

10.The present Civil Miscellaneous Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.