W.P(MD)No.18582 of 2023 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15.07.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI W.P(MD)No.18582 of 2023 and W.M.P.(MD).No.15408 of 2023 The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Madurai Limited, Dindigul Region, Head Office, Bye Pass Road, Dindigul-624 004. ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Assistant Commissioner (Enforcement), Dindigul, Dindigul District. 2.K.Balakrishnan ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records on the file of the first respondent pertaining to its proceedings in Pa.Ni.Sa.Va.No.54 of 2018 dated 27.02.2023 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.SC.Herold Singh 1/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.18582 of 2023 For R-1 : Mr.M.Mahaboof Athiff, Counsel for the State For R-2 : Ms.S.Vijayshanthi ORDER This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the first respondent pertaining to the proceedings in Pa.Ni.Sa.Va.No.54 of 2018 dated 27.02.2023. 2. Heard the learned counsel on either side. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the second respondent was initially appointed as a Driver in the Reserve Crew on 10.07.2015. It is his case that the second respondent had completed 480 days of continuous service within a period of 24 calendar months and, therefore, claimed permanent status by invoking the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981. Accepting the said claim, the competent authority conferred permanent status on the second respondent with effect from 10.07.2015. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.18582 of 2023 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would further submit that once the services of the second respondent had already been regularised under the settlement arrived at under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act had no jurisdiction to once again confer permanent status with retrospective effect. On the above ground, it is contended that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would submit that, admittedly, on the dates when the applications seeking conferment of permanent status were filed, the second respondent had not been regularised. Therefore, he was fully entitled to invoke the provisions of Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981, for claiming permanent status upon completion of 480 days of continuous service. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the first respondent rendered a finding of fact and granted the relief. Such a factual finding does not warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the absence of any perversity or patent illegality. 3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.18582 of 2023 6. The learned Counsel for State appearing for the first respondent would submit that the Division Bench of this Court, in the batch of writ appeals in W.A. (MD).Nos.442 of 2025 etc., batch, has held that where an employee is already a permanent employee, he cannot maintain a claim before the authority constituted under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act. However, in the present case, when the second respondent approached the first respondent by filing the applications seeking conferment of permanent status, he was only a temporary employee. Therefore, the applications were maintainable and were rightly entertained by the first respondent. Hence, no interference is called for with the impugned order. 7. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the materials placed on record. 8. It is not in dispute that the second respondent had filed applications seeking conferment of permanent status, at a point of time when his services had not been regularised. Therefore, the applications were maintainable under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981. The subsequent regularisation of his services under a settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act 4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.18582 of 2023 would not render the proceedings already initiated under the Act non- maintainable, nor would it divest the first respondent of the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the claim. The first respondent has, on appreciation of the records, arrived at a factual finding that the second respondent had completed the qualifying period of 480 days of continuous service and was entitled to the benefit of permanent status from the date of such completion. This Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not sit as an appellate authority over such findings of fact. No perversity, arbitrariness or jurisdictional error has been demonstrated so as to warrant interference with the impugned order. 9. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent fairly submitted that, though this Court may uphold the order passed by the first respondent, the second respondent is willing to waive the claim for back wages for the interregnum period. However, he seeks continuity of service and all other attendant service benefits flowing from the conferment of permanent status. 5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.18582 of 2023 10. Recording the said submission, this Court makes it clear that the second respondent shall be entitled to continuity of service and all consequential service benefits arising out of the order of conferment of permanent status. However, he shall not be entitled to claim back wages for the period prior to his regularisation. 11. In the light of the above, the writ petition stands dismissed, subject to the above observation. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 15.07.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No TSG To The Assistant Commissioner (Enforcement), Dindigul, Dindigul District. 6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.18582 of 2023 M.DHANDAPANI, J. TSG W.P(MD)No.18582 of 2023 15.07.2026 7/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis