Judgment :- (PRAYER: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the first respondent in connection with its order Ref.No.5518/98 dated 26th February 1999 and quash the same.) As a result of my conclusion that the issue raised in this writ petition deserves to be referred to a larger Bench, it is sufficient to state only the basic facts. 2. All the petitioners claiming to have been working under the second respondent Management who have put in a continuous service of more than 480 days within a period of two calender years, had moved the first respondent, being the appropriate authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establisments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981, (hereinafter called the Tamil Nadu Act), for conferment of permanency of their services. The first respondent rejected their petition on the ground that as on the date when they approached the authorities, they had been dismissed from service and hence, there was no relationship of employer and employee and the petition cannot be maintained before the authority. 3. Before this Court also the second respondent-Management had taken the same objection, namely, that the petitioners cannot maintain the petition for conferment of permanent status when the very basis of the claim of the worker, namely, that he was an employee, did not subsist when the petition was filed. This submission is mainly based on the judgment of the Supreme Court in TAMIL NADU CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION WORKERS UNION Vs. TAMIL NADU CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD. (2001 (3) LLN 86). The Supreme Court confirmed the order of the Division Bench of the High Court. On the facts of that case, the employer had terminated the services of a number of workmen. Hence, they filed a writ petition questioning the termination and also prayed for injunction that the workers should not be relieved from their work. The writ petition filed by the Union was dismissed by the learned single Judge. Some of the employees filed an appeal. In the meantime, many workmen filed writ petitions claiming permanency. Hence, they filed a writ petition questioning the termination and also prayed for injunction that the workers should not be relieved from their work. The writ petition filed by the Union was dismissed by the learned single Judge. Some of the employees filed an appeal. In the meantime, many workmen filed writ petitions claiming permanency. The Division Bench held that the Union had to await the final outcome of those writ petitions questioning the termination and also that since the services of the employees had been terminated, it was for the employees to seek their remedies in a manner known to law. The Supreme Court confirmed the judgment of the Division Bench. 4. According to Mr.V.Prakash, learned senior counsel, the Supreme Court did not lay down any declaration of law that in all cases where an employee had been dismissed from service, he cannot invoke the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act. Such an issue never arose for consideration before the Supreme Court. The decision rendered by the Supreme Court was only on the peculiar facts and circumstances of those cases where simultaneously two types of writ petitions had been filed, one claiming permanency and another questioning the orders of termination. He contends that in the present case, the petitioners had neither approached the labour Court nor the High Court questioning the non-employment. He also contends that if the interpretation of Management on the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act is to be accepted, the entire Act would only be rendered ineffective and purposeless at the stroke of the pen by the Management terminating the services of the employee on receiving any notice or representation from the workers for conferment of permanency. By dismissing such employees from duty, the statutory right of the employees for conferment of permanency would be successfully foreclosed by the Management. It is true that the employee can raise a dispute before the labour Court as against the order of termination. But in many cases, going before the labour Court may provide only relief available under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, but the employee's statutory right to be granted permanency as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Act, can be agitated only under the machinery provided under the Tamil Nadu Act. But in many cases, going before the labour Court may provide only relief available under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, but the employee's statutory right to be granted permanency as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Act, can be agitated only under the machinery provided under the Tamil Nadu Act. According to him, the Tamil Nadu Act does not also contemplate any embargo to approach the authority under the Act if he had been dismissed from service. The lis in the judgment of the Supreme Court was not the question of maintainability of the petition under the Tamil Nadu Act by a dismissed employee. 5. I find considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. In the judgment of the Supreme Court, it does not appear that the Court had declared the law positively to the effect that termination from service would be a complete bar to move the authority under the Tamil Nadu Act. The Supreme Court had taken note of the pendency of another writ petition by the same parties questioning the orders of termination and the Court felt that they could pursue or wait for the conclusion of that petition. 7. However, the learned counsel for the Management relies on the judgment of K.Govindarajan,J., in the MANAGEMENT OF ASHOK LEYLAND LTD., CHENNAI Vs. R.BHASKAR AND OTHERS (2003 (2) LLN 638). Following the judgment of the Supreme Court referred supra, the learned Judge set aside the order of the appropriate authority directing the Management to confer permanent status in view of the circumstance that the employee had approached the Labour Court as against the order of termination. 8. The further fact which would appear to distinguish the judgment of the Supreme Court is that, in that case, there was a finding by the Division Bench that the establishment was of a seasonal character. Therefore, the question as to whether the Supreme Court had laid down the specific proposition as law, namely, that no petition under the Tamil Nadu Act can be filed by a dismissed employee, requires to be determined and it is desirable that the issue is considered and an authoritative pronouncement is made by a larger Bench, considering that the said issue arises frequently in several other writ petitions. 9. A perusal of the judgment of the Supreme Court in STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS Vs. 9. A perusal of the judgment of the Supreme Court in STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS Vs. NELLAI COTTON MILLS LTD. & OTHERS (1990 CLR 641), in which, the validity of some of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act was considered, appears to suggest that the Act will not cease to apply merely on the termination or cessation of the employment. However, it should be pointed out that in that judgment also, the issue as to whether the petition under the Tamil Nadu Act can be set in motion by a dismissed employee or not, did not arise for consideration specifically. In the above circumstances, the Registry is directed to place the papers before My Lord the Chief Justice for reference to a larger Bench.