Common Judgment:

N. Sathish Kumar, J.

1. Challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the Writ Petitions in W.P(MD)Nos.1554 to 1572 of 2024, thereby confirming the awards passed by the Labour Court, Madurai, the writ petitioners, as appellants, have preferred the present Writ Appeals.

2. Since the issue involved in these Writ Appeals is one and the same and the facts are also identical, a common order is being passed.

3. The undisputed facts are that 41 workers of the Madurai District Co-operative Milk Producers Union, Madurai, sought conferment of permanent status under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), with effect from the date on which they had completed 480 days of service as per Section 3 of the Act. The said applications came to be allowed under three sets of orders dated 26.07.1996, 30.09.1996 and 13.12.1996 and accordingly, the employees were conferred permanent status.

4. Subsequently, W.P.No.5962 of 1997 was filed by the Employees’ Union seeking implementation of the order of the CPS Authority. In the meanwhile, the Management filed W.P.Nos.32916 and 35143 of 2013 challenging the orders of the CPS Authority. The writ Court dismissed the Writ Petitions filed by the Management and allowed the Writ Petition filed by the Employees’ Union. Aggrieved by the same, the Management preferred W.A.No.1427 of 2007, which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 10.03.2008. The Special Leave Petition filed by the Management before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India was also dismissed on 04.08.2008.

5. Thereafter, the Government issued G.O.Ms.(2D)No.169, Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries Department, dated 22.06.2010, granting permanent status to nine casual labourers with monetary benefits from 28.07.2007. Not being satisfied with the said Government Order, the Employees’ Union filed Cont.P.No.279 of 2009 before this Court. This Court, while closing the Contempt Petition, granted liberty to the employees to work out their remedy for implementation of the order of the Inspector of Factories.

6. Pursuant thereto, a claim petition was filed by one R. Venkatachalam in C.P.No.18 of 2002 before the Labour Court, Madurai, seeking difference in wages for the period from 07.05.1994 to 30.11.2001. He also filed another Computation Petition in C.P.No.140 of 2013 for the period from 01.04.2001 to 31.12.2013. C.P.No.18 of 2002 was allowed on 07.04.2010 and C.P.No.140 of 2013 was allowed on 18.06.2015.

7. Challenging the said orders, the Management filed W.P. (MD)No.2924 of 2012 and W.P.(MD)No.2283 of 2016 before this Court. By order dated 29.07.2021, this Court dismissed both the Writ Petitions confirming the orders passed by the Labour Court in the Computation Petitions. The said order was challenged in W.A.(MD) Nos.2020 and 2021 of 2021, which were dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 15.11.2021. The Review Application filed by the Management was also dismissed on 03.02.2022.

8. As the orders passed in C.P.No.18 of 2002 and C.P.No.140 of 2013 had reached finality, the respondents herein filed claim petitions seeking similar benefits. The said applications were allowed. Challenging the same, the Management filed the Writ Petitions before the learned Single Judge.

9. The learned Single Judge, taking into consideration the fact that similarly placed persons had already been granted the benefit and that the challenge to such orders had reached finality, dismissed the Writ Petitions. Aggrieved by the same, the Management, as appellants, have preferred the present Writ Appeals.

10. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

11. When the conferment of permanent status has attained finality up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the monetary benefits were granted only from 28.07.2007 and not from 12.03.2001. Subsequently, the Computation Petitions in C.P.No.18 of 2002 and C.P.No.140 of 2013 seeking monetary benefits were allowed in respect of one R.Venkatachalam on 07.04.2010 and 18.06.2015 respectively, and those orders have also attained finality.

12. Immediately thereafter, the respondents herein filed Computation Petitions seeking similar benefits. Once the date from which the benefit has to be granted has attained finality in respect of similarly placed persons, the Management cannot take a different stand that the respondents are not entitled to such benefits and that they are entitled to monetary benefits only from the year 2007 and not from the year 2001, though the Computation Petitions were filed seeking monetary benefits from August 1994 to August 2013.

13. Such discrimination cannot be countenanced in the eye of law. Two different yardsticks cannot be applied in granting permanent status and consequential benefits to employees who are similarly situated. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the orders passed by the learned Single Judge.

14. Accordingly, these Writ Appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.