AR.LAKSHMANAN, J. - (1.) THE writ appeal No. 512/1997 has been directed against the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant workers union for a mandamus forbearing the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited (hereinafter Direct Purchase Centres under the control of the Corporation who have rendered 480 days of service in two consecutive years or who have been granted permanent status by the Inspector of Labour, Thanjavur, Nagapattinam and A.T. Panneerselvam Districts. The learned Judge (R. Jayasimha Babu, J.) dismissed the writ petition in limine on April 10, 1997 by passing the following order : "Petitioner -union wants a blanket injunction in favour of a large number of its employees though the exact number is not specified from being relieved from their places of work. Petitioner is not entitled to any such blanket relief. If the respondents have committed any error of law or violated any legal rights of the employees, such employees may take such action as is available to them in accordance with law, to challenge the illegal action if any on the part of the respondents. This petition is misconceived and the same is rejected. Consequently, the W.M.P. is also rejected."
(2.) THE appellant workers union filed writ petition No. 4798/1997 claiming that, pursuant to the Judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 5459/1983, Writ Appeal No. 423/1992 and S.L.P. No. 16474/1992, they are entitled for grant of permanent status with effect from the date of completion of 480 days, that the Inspector of Labour, Tanjavur in his proceedings in R.C. No. A -19146/1992 dated May 31, 1995 have granted permanent status to 151 employees and that the Inspector of Labour, Nagapattinam in his proceedings dated March 25, 1995 held that out of 129 employees, 128 were eligible for grant of permanent status and that the Corporation have filed W.Ps. 14889 and 14640/1996 against the above orders and the writ petitions are pending on the file of this Court for final adjudication. Mr. R. Ganesan, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that even after grant of permanent status to workers, the Corporation is seeking to oust them from services on the ground of closure of the season. Since the Corporation is planning to oust the employees so working in Direct Purchase Centres "who have rendered 480 days of service in two calender years and who have been granted permanent status by the Inspector of labour and that there will be work throughout the year, there is no justification at all for the Corporation to oust the employees working in "Direct Purchase Centres" who have rendered 480 days of service in 2 calender years who have already been granted permanent status. If this is allowed to be done, it will run counter to the decision of this Court and also will be unjust and unreasonable. In the circumstances, the workers union filed writ petition No. 4798/1997. The writ appeal was admitted on June 13, 1997 and the Corporation have now filed their counter affidavit denying the allegations contained in the affidavit. It is stated that the appointment to the post is a seasonal one which can be terminated at any time as soon as the work is over, and that the workers are not entitled for the grant of permanent status under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981. It is also submitted that the Establishment is of a seasonal character and that the work is performed only intermittently, the Act has no application to the Corporation. It is also submitted that against the order of the Inspector of Labour, Thanjavur who has granted permanent status to the employees by his order dated May 25, 1995 and that against the order of the Inspector of Labour, Nagapattinam who has granted permanent status to the employees by his order dated March 25, 1995, the Corporation have preferred Writ Petitions Nos. 14639 and 14640/1996 before this Court challenging the said orders and the writ petitions are admitted and are pending final disposal. In the mean time, the workers have filed the present writ petition No. 4728/1997 with a wholesale prayer directing the Corporation to regularise the seasonal employees who are not at all covered by the order passed by the Inspector of Labour, Thanjavur and Nagapattinam in their proceedings dated May 31, 1995 and March 25, 1995. The prayer as far as the writ petition is concerned, cannot be granted since on May 7, 1997 itself the seasonal employees had been terminated from service. Other legal and factual contentions have also been raised in the counter affidavit. In support of his contentions Mr. R. Ganesan has cited the following decisions (1) 1985 -II -LLJ -376 (Mad) (2) 1986 -II -LLJ -171) (SC) (3) 1989 1990 AIR(SC) 334, 1989 (3) JT 188, 1990 LIC 324, 1989 (2) LLJ 506, 1989 (5) SLR 3, 1989 (2) Scale 107, 1989 (4) SCC 187, 1989 (3) SCR 488, 1990 (1) UJ 40, 1989 SCC(L&S) 569 (4) 1988 AIR(SC) 1531, 1988 (2) CRIMES 753, 1988 (94) CRLJ 1661, 1988 CrLR(SC) 366, 1988 (2) JT 325, 1988 (S) Scale 52, 1988 (2) SCC 602, 1988 SCC(Cr) 372, 1988 (S1) SCR 1, 1988 CRLR 366 (5) 1994 AIR(SC) 2145, 1994 (3) JT 92, 1994 (1) RCJ 588, 1994 (1) RCR 744, 1994 (1) RentLR 383, 1994 (2) Scale 368, 1994 (4) SCC 53, 1994 (1) KLT 942 (6) 1994 (1) Scale 20, 1994 (4) SCC 145 (7) 1997 AIR(SC) 808, 1997 (2) CLT 242, 1997 (1) JT 538, 1997 (1) Supreme 510, 1997 (1) Scale 292, 1997 (2) SCC 552 (8) 1997 (I) MLJ 105 (9) 1990 LIC 249
(3.) WRIT Appeal Nos. 563 to 565/1997 : These three writ appeals are by the individual seasonal employees of the Corporation. These three appeals were filed for a mandamus directing the Corporation to confer permanent status on the writ petitioners with effect from May 3, 1986 with all consequential, monetary, service and other attendant benefits. All the three writ appeals were dismissed by Kanakaraj, J. on April 22, 1997 on the ground that the Workmen have to approach the Inspector for declaration and that after such declaration by the Inspector, if the Management refuse to confer permanent status, it is time enough for the petitioners to approach this Court or any other competent authority and that the workmen cannot straightaway approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct the Management to confer permanent status from a particular date. In this view of the matter, the learned Judge was not inclined to entertain any of these writ petitions and accordingly dismissed the same. Hence the workmen have filed the above three writ appeals. Mr. Perumbulavil Radhakrishnan, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no provision in the Act for approaching the Labour Inspector under the Act and the writ petitioner cannot maintain the writ petition and can only approach the Labour Officer is not correct. He further submitted that the writ petition for a mandamus to enforce a statutory right is maintainable in law. He would further submit that though the services of the workmen were permanently required and the Corporation was wilfully keeping them temporary and having periodically ousting only to exploit them of the monetary benefits due to them.;