(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order passed in W.P(MD)No.11228 of 2015 dated 25.06.2019.)

M. Dhandapani, J.

1. Challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(MD) No.11228 of 2015, dated 25.06.2019, the respondents 3 to 5, 11, 17, 23, 26 and 29 have preferred the present Writ Appeal.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the appellants and respondents 3 to 31 are employees of the first respondent/writ petitioner and have rendered more than a decade of service. However, their services were neither regularised nor made permanent. Therefore, they filed applications under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, seeking conferment of permanent status, and the same were allowed by the competent authority.

3. Aggrieved by the said orders, the first respondent/writ petitioner filed W.P.(MD) Nos.11228 and 11229 of 2015 before the learned Single Judge of this Court. The learned Single Judge, by a common order dated 25.06.2019, disposed of the writ petitions by referring to the decision of this Court in W.A.(MD) Nos.1302 of 2003 etc., batch, dated 24.01.2008. Challenging the said order, some of the respondents in W.P.(MD) No.11228 of 2015 have preferred the present Writ Appeal.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would further submit that this Court called for the records to ascertain whether the appellants had completed 480 days of service in two calendar years.

5. Upon perusal of the records, this Court is not satisfied with the materials placed on record with regard to the service rendered by the appellants for 480 days in two calendar years.

6. Therefore, the appellants would submit that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the order passed by the second respondent may be set aside and the matter may be remanded back to the second respondent for fresh consideration, with an opportunity to the workmen to establish that they had completed 480 days of continuous service in two calendar years, so as to satisfy the requirements under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent would submit that the appellants and the respondents 3 to 31 are contract employees and, therefore, they are not entitled to file applications under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act before the second respondent, since there is no employer-employee relationship between the workmen and the first respondent. If the workmen have any grievance with regard to their contractual employment or non-regularisation of their services, their remedy would lie under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act and not under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act.

8. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

9. Admittedly, this Court, upon perusal of the records, is not satisfied with the materials placed before it to establish that the workmen had completed 480 days of continuous service in two calendar years under an employer-employee relationship with the first respondent. In such circumstances, the issue requires fresh consideration by the competent authority after affording sufficient opportunity to the workmen to produce the relevant records and establish the period of service rendered by them.

10. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim of the workmen for conferment of permanent status, we are of the considered view that the matter requires to be remanded to the second respondent for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

11. Accordingly, the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(MD) No.11228 of 2015, dated 25.06.2019, is set aside. Consequently, the order passed by the second respondent is also set aside. The matter is remanded to the second respondent for fresh consideration.

12. The workmen are at liberty to file appropriate applications and produce relevant documents/materials to establish that they have completed 480 days of continuous service in two calendar years under an employer-employee relationship with the first respondent. Upon receipt of such applications, the second respondent shall consider the same on merits, afford reasonable opportunity to all the parties concerned, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.

13. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed. No costs.