Judgment :- This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 31.10.1997, passed by the second respondent granting permanent status to six casual employees who are working in the petitioner Corporation Godown as Watchmen on the ground that the casual workmen have completed 480 days of service in 24 calendar months. 2. According to the petitioner, they were not appointed against the sanctioned vacancies and there was no budgetary sanction to the post. All these persons were appointed as casual labourers de-hors the rule, there is no regular work available to keep them through out the year. Subsection 3 of Section 1 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 makes it clear that the provisions of the Act do not apply to casual employees or seasonal employees or where the work is performed intermittently. Further the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation is a Government owned Corporation. For the purpose of procurement of paddy, the petitioner Corporation employed Seasonal and Casual employees. The District purchase centres were opened only during the harvest season and closed when the procurement of paddy was over and the procured paddy were stored in the Corporation Godowns. The nature of the work depends upon the policy decision taken by the Government. The procurement of paddy is only seasonal in nature. The Corporation cannot have adequate work in order to provide employment to these casual employees. Therefore, they do not acquire any right for regularisation. Therefore, the mere fact that they have completed 480 days within a period of two years, they are not entitled to get permanent status. The impugned order which grant permanent status is therefore liable to be set aside. That apart the Labour Union has no right to take up the case of the individual member and therefore on that ground also the authority should have dismissed the application. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in support of his contention relied upon the decision in Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Employees Union Vs. That apart the Labour Union has no right to take up the case of the individual member and therefore on that ground also the authority should have dismissed the application. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in support of his contention relied upon the decision in Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Employees Union Vs. Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation (1999(1)CTC 310), wherein it has been held: "Maintainability of writ petition filed by union questioning order of transfer issued to individual employee who are all members of union - Employee's union cannot maintain a writ petition challenging order of transfer issued to individual members who are employees of corporation." Relying on this decision, the learned counsel contended that union has no right to file the case. 4. Further the learned counsel relied upon the decision in Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Workers Union Vs. Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited and others (2001(2)CTC 92), wherein the writ petition was dismissed on the ground that union was not entitled to ask for blanket injunction and holding that the affected employees could seek remedies in accordance with law. He also relied upon the decision in Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Workers Union, Thajavur Vs. Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., (1997 (III) CTC 535), and contended that the persons engaged in daily wages cannot claim permanent status under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act 1981. The learned counsel submitted that those five persons were not appointed against the sanctioned vacancies and therefore, the Act is not applicable and they cannot be made as permanent employees. 5. Per Contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that they were not seasonal employees. They were all appointed against the sanctioned vacancies. Further, the petition was filed before the authority constituted under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status) Act, and according to the Trade Union Act, the union has got the right to represent their members; in fact they have filed authorisation to represent the case of the workers before the authority. Therefore, for all these reasons, the orders passed by the authority is perfectly valid and does not suffer from infirmity. 6. A perusal of the appointment order shows that all these employees were appointed against the sanctioned vacancies. Therefore, for all these reasons, the orders passed by the authority is perfectly valid and does not suffer from infirmity. 6. A perusal of the appointment order shows that all these employees were appointed against the sanctioned vacancies. By the letter in Ref.No.9146/46/93, for filling up of the posts of Watchmen in Periyar District, persons were called for interview on 05.03.1993 through the District Employment Exchange. By the proceedings dated 31.03.1993 in No.MC.346/93/E6 dated 31.03.1993, these persons were appointed. From that, it is seen that one M.Sekaran was appointed in a permanent post, which became vacant due to the transfer of the then incumbent Veeran. Thiru M.Nagarajan was appointed in the vacancy created due to the promotion of one Radhakrishnan; and Govindarajan was appointed in a sanctioned post and Premkumar was also appointed due to promotion of incumbent; and M.Subramaniam also appointed due to the transfer of the then incumbent. 7. Therefore, mere perusal of this order itself would show they were appointed in the sanctioned posts which become vacant either to promotion or due to transfer. Therefore, the argument that they were not appointed to a sanctioned post is not correct. Further it is a post of watchman in a godown of the Corporation. There is no evidence to show that it is only a seasonal work. The very fact that the incumbents are promoted and transferred to other places, show that they are not seasonal employees. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not acceptable. Therefore, the argument that the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981, is not applicable to the petitioner is not correct. The appointment order makes it clear that it is not an appointment of a seasonal character or daily wages. None of the judgment relied upon by the petitioner is applicable to the present case, since they were appointed pursuant to the names being forwarded by the employment exchange. 8. The learned Senior Counsel Mr.Chandru relied upon the judgment of this Court in M.Irudhayanathan and others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others (1997(3)LLN 544), wherein the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment(conferment of permanent status to Workmen) Act 1981 is held applicable to the Cooperative Societies also. Therefore the impugned the order does not suffer from any infirmity and hence the impugned order cannot be set aside. 9. State of Tamil Nadu and others (1997(3)LLN 544), wherein the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment(conferment of permanent status to Workmen) Act 1981 is held applicable to the Cooperative Societies also. Therefore the impugned the order does not suffer from any infirmity and hence the impugned order cannot be set aside. 9. In the result, writ petition is devoid of merits and hence dismissed. Consequently, WMP.No.5743 of 1998 is closed. No costs.