Judgment :- (Writ appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters patent against the order dated 30.09.1999 made in W.P.No.16144 of 1999.) P. Sathasivam, J. M/s Hindustan Photo Films Manufacturing Company Ltd., aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge dated 30.09.1999 made in W.P.No.16144 of 1999, in and by which the learned single Judge confirmed the order of the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, Coimbatore-12, has filed the above writ appeal. 2. It is seen that respondents 2 to 64 have filed an application before the first respondent, Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, Coimbatore-12 under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 for an appropriate direction to confer permanent status on them. It is not in dispute that the said authority, after hearing both parties, including the management, accepted the claim of the workmen and ordered the application. Questioning the same, the management has filed W.P.No.16144 of 1999 before this Court. The learned single Judge, on going through the factual finding of the authority and taking note of the fact that all the workmen are entitled for regularisation, dismissed the writ petition at the admission stage. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ appeal has been filed. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as respondents 2 to 64. 4. The only point for consideration in this appeal is whether there is any ground for interference as against the order of the authority, which was confirmed by the learned single Judge. 5. It is seen that the authority, in his order, which is available at page 18 to 27 of the typed set of papers, after noting the date of initial entry into the service and the number of days worked based on the relevant documents, arrived at a conclusion that all the 62 workmen are to be regularised/made permanent. As stated earlier, the said order came to be passed after hearing both parties and on the basis of the records produced. The said factual finding was considered by the learned single Judge. As stated earlier, the said order came to be passed after hearing both parties and on the basis of the records produced. The said factual finding was considered by the learned single Judge. The order of the learned single judge also shows that the learned Judge was aware of the stand taken by the management which sustained loss due to various other reasons and held that merely on that score, viz., that the management is incurring loss, it cannot be held that the order passed by the competent authority is illegal and could be voided. The conclusion of the learned single Judge also shows that it is not as if the services of the 63 workers are no longer required to the management. The order further shows that all 63 workmen had been in continuous employment since 1991 and their services are still required. 6. Even before us, the learned counsel for the appellant, by drawing our attention to the order of the Division Bench dated 2.9.2003 made in W.A.Nos.1117 to 1132 of 1998, submitted that the management has no objection to pass a similar order as made therein. However, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-workmen has brought to our notice that the workmen in that case were trainees and ousted from service at the instance of the management. In such circumstances, the direction issued in respect of those persons cannot be applied to the respondents herein, who worked continuously for several years and after proper enquiry, their services were recognised by the competent authority and orders issued. In the light of the distinction and in view of the categorical finding by the authority, which was upheld by the learned single Judge, we are unable to accept the only argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. 7. On the other hand, we are in agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Judge and we do not find any valid ground for interference. Consequently, the writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.