(Prayer in W. A. (MD) No.3196 of 2025: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, praying to set aside the Order dated September 11, 2025 made in W.P. (MD) No.12824 of 2023 on the file of this Court.

In C.M.P. (MD) No.19644 of 2025: Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed praying to stay the operation of the Order dated September 11, 2025, passed in W.P. (MD) No.12824 of 2023, pending disposal of the Writ Appeal and pass such further or other orders.

In W. A. (MD) No.3197 of 2025: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, praying to set aside the Order dated September 09, 2025 made in W.P. (MD) No.12823 of 2023 on the file of this Court.

In C.M.P. (MD) No.19647 of 2025: Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed praying to stay the operation of the Order dated September 09, 2025, passed in W.P. (MD) No.12823 of 2023, pending disposal of the Writ Appeal and pass such further or other orders.)

Common Judgment

R. Sakthivel, J.

1. These Writ Appeals are filed at the instance of the second respondents in W.P. (MD) Nos.12823 of 2023 and W.P. (MD) No.12824 of 2023, challenging the Common Order dated September 09, 2025 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court therein.

BRIEF FACTS NECESSARY FOR THE DISPOSAL OF THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE AS FOLLOWS:

2. Both the aforesaid Writ Petitions were filed at the instance of the first respondent herein / writ petitioner, the Executive Officer of the Seithur Selection Grade Town Panchayat, Virudhungar District, praying to quash the Orders even dated October 12, 2022 passed by the second respondent herein, who is the authority constituted under 'the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 [Tamil Nadu Act No.46 Of 1981]' ['1981 Act' for short], conferring permanent status to the appellants - V.Pechimuthu and K.Mariappan in Na. Ka. No.1854-1 / 2019 and Na. Ka. No.1854-2/2019 respectively.

                     2.1. The appellants namely K.Marippan and V.Pechimuthu were working with the first respondent's Town Panchayat as a Plumber and as a Gate Valve Opener respectively. They both were working so from February 05, 2005 onwards. On February 04, 2007, they satisfied the criteria of continuous employment for a continuous period of 480 days within a span of 24 months. Accordingly, they both made separate applications even dated May 22, 2019 before the second respondent herein - Authority, seeking conferment of permanent status. Appellants - K.Marippan and V.Pechimuthu were conferred with permanent status by the second respondent vide proceedings even dated October 12, 2022 in Na. Ka. No.1854-2/2019 and Na. Ka. No.1854-1/2019 respectively.

                     2.2. The Executive Officer of the aforesaid Town Panchayat, feeling aggrieved by the said Orders, filed the above Writ Petitions. The Writ Petition in W.P. (MD) No.12824 of 2023 was filed assailing the Order in Na. Ka. No.1854-2/2019 and that in W.P. (MD) No.12823 of 2023 was filed challenging the Order in Na. Ka. No.1854-1/2019.

                     2.3. After hearing both sides, the learned Single Judge arrived at the conclusion that the employment of the appellants herein / second respondents in the Writ Petitions, as well as the emoluments paid to them, were through the Bharathi Self-Help Group. Hence, there is no employeremployee relationship between the appellants herein and first respondent's Town Panchayat. The appellants being contract labourers, the jurisdiction of the second respondent herein - Authority cannot be invoked seeking conferment status. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petitions and set aside the Orders conferring permanent status to the appellants.

                     2.4. Aggrieved by the said Dismissal Order, the appellants herein who are the second respondents in the Writ Petitions have filed these two Writ Appeals.

ARGUMENTS :

3. Mr.I.Suthakaran, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants would argue that the appellants - K.Marippan and V.Pechimuthu were working from the year 2005 as a Plumber and Gate Valve Operator respectively with the first respondent's Town Panchayat. They completed 480 days within a period of two years and thus became entitled to conferment of permanent status. Hence, the second respondent herein - Authority, upon rightly recording a factual finding based on evidence that the appellants are workman with the first respondent's Town Panchayat, rightly proceeded to confer them with permanent status. The learned Single Judge without considering the facts and circumstances as well as the materials, erred in allowing the Writ Petitions and quashing the Orders passed by the second respondent - Authority. In support of his submissions, he would rely on the Judgement in the case of Sukhendu Bhattacharjee -vs- The State of Assam bearing neutral citation 2026 INSC 523.

4. Per Contra, Mr.B.Saravanan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 in both the Writ Appeals would submit that the first respondent's Town Panchayat is a local body of self-governance governed by the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998 and it would not fall under the definition of industrial establishment under the 1981 Act. He would further submit that the Government vide G.O. Ms. No.139, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (TP.1) Department, dated October 03, 2022, took a policy decision to engage private service providers / contractors / agencies to operate and maintain the Street Light System, Water Supply System, Underground Sewerage System and Solid Waste Management activities on contract basis. On that basis, the first respondent's Town Panchayat engaged the said Bharathi Self-Help Group, which supplied the appellants as Plumber and Gate Valve Opener to the first respondent's Town Panchayat. The appellants are not directly working under the first respondent's Town Panchayat, on the other hand, they are working under the Bharathi Self-Help Group. Hence, there is no employer-employee relationship between them. He would further argue that enquiry under the 1981 Act is a summary proceeding. When the first respondent denied the employer-employee relationship, the second respondent - Authority ought to have relegated the appellants to work out their remedy before appropriate forum, for the first respondent has no jurisdiction to decide a question of fact in a summary proceeding. The learned Single Judge, after appreciating the entire materials available on record, rightly allowed the Writ Petitions and set aside the Orders passed by the second respondent. There is no warrant to interfere with the same. Accordingly, he would pray to dismiss the Writ Appeals. He would rely on the following Judgments:

                     (i) Steel Authority of India Ltd., -vs- National Union Waterfront Workers, reported in (2001) 7 SCC 1;

                     (ii) Executive Officer, Eriyodu Town Panchayat -vs- Inspector of Labour, Authority under the TamilNadu Industrial Establishment, reported in 2025 SCC Online Mad 3151; and

                     (iii) Superintending Engineer, Erode Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board -vs- Inspector of Labour, reported in 2022 SCC Online Mad 1003.

DISCUSSION :

5. This Court has considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6. The appellants claim that they are working under the first respondent's Town Panchayat, but no acceptable documents or evidence were produced before the competent authority to show that they were directly employed under the first respondent's Town Panchayat continuously for the statutory period. Appellant - Pechimuthu has annexed in the typed set of papers his bank statement for the period between May 13, 2008 and April 21, 2017. This Court has perused the same in its entirety and there exist nothing in it to show that he was directly employed for a continuous period of 480 days over 2 years under the first respondent's Town Panchayat. On the other hand, he appears to be intermittently receiving salary from Bharathi Self-Help Group. It could be seen from his bank statements that he received a salary of Rs.7000/- in the month of January 2017 from "Executive Officer". In February 2017, he received a salary of Rs.7,000/- from Bharthi Self-Help Group. In March 2017 he received a salary of Rs.7000, but, there are no particulars as to from whom it was received. In April 2017, he received salary of Rs.7000/- from first respondent's Town Panchayat. In these circumstances, his bank statement does not sufficiently support his case.

7. Similarly, the appellant - Mariappan has also annexed his bank account statement for the period between February 20, 2014 and January 03, 2019. The bank statement reveals that in the month of January 2017 he received a sum of Rs.8500/- from the first respondent's Town Panchayat. In February 2017, he received a sum of Rs.8500/- from the Bharathi Self- Help Group. In the month of March 2017, he received Rs.8500/- and it is not clear as to from whom he received the same. In April 2017 he received salary of Rs.8500/- from the first respondent's Town Panchayat. Even his bank statement does not sufficiently support his claim that he has worked for a continuous period of 480 days within a span of 2 years directly under the first respondent's Town Panchayat.

8. As both the appellants have failed to establish that they were directly employed under the first respondent's Town Panchayat continuously for a period of 480 days within a span of 2 years, they are not entitled for conferment of permanent status. There is yet another reason for the decision, which is that the first respondent's Town Panchayat being a local body of self-governance, does not fall under the definition of industrial establishment under Section 2 (3) of the 1981 Act. In this regard, it may be useful to refer to the Judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of the Principal Seat at Madras reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Mad 3151 [cited supra], which was relied on by the learned Additional Advocate General. Relevant portion reads as hereunder:

                     ''...11. It is indeed unfortunate, but the legal position is clear – for a person to claim the benefit of permanent status under the TamilNadu Act 46 of 1981, two conditions must be satisfied. First, he must be employed in an industrial establishment as defined under Section 2(3) of the Act. Second, he must also fall within the definition of a ''Workman'' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the present case, it was the specific stand of the appellant panchayat that the second respondent had participated in a tender process and was awarded the contract for operating the Overhead Tank. This factual position was not denied by the Second respondent, nor was it rejected by the learned Single Judge. If that is so, the question that naturally arises is – how can such a person, who secured the engagement through a tender process and was not directly employed by the Panchayat, be considered a ''Workman'' so as to attract the benefits under the TamilNadu Act 46 of 1981?

                     12. Thus, this Court is of the view that both the first respondent authority as well as the learned Single Judge have misdirected themselves on a fundamental question of law. They have erroneously conferred the benefit of permanent status on the second respondent, despite the admitted position that he was a contractor who had been engaged to perform a contract for service. A person so engaged cannot, by any stretch of interpretation, be treated as a ''workman'' within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. As a result, he cannot seek or be granted the statutory benefits which are exclusively meant for workmen who are employed under a contract of service...''

9. In view of the foregoing narrative, this Court finds that the second respondent - Authority erred in ordering conferment of permanent status, when the first respondent's Town Panchayat does not fall within the meaning of industrial establishment under the 1981 Act and when there are no sufficient materials to establish that the appellants were working for a continuous period of 480 days within a span of 2 years. Hence, the learned Single Judge is right in setting aside the second respondent's Orders conferring permanent status to the appellants. There is no warrant to interfere with the same.

10. Sukhendu Bhattacharjee's Case [cited supra] relied on by the learned Counsel for the appellants, is not applicable to the facts of the present case, as in the present case, the appellants failed to establish employer-employee relationship.

CONCLUSION :

11. Accordingly, these Writ Appeals are dismissed. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connect Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.