Judgment :- K. Chandru, J. This writ appeal is filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 30.6.2006 made in W.P.No.22606 of 2006 wherein and by which the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the order of the first respondent dated 26. 2003 was dismissed. 2. Before the first respondent, the second respondent Union filed a petition seeking for grant of confirmation of permanent status to 49 workmen in terms of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Confirment of Permanent Status) Act, 1991 (Tamil Nadu Act 46 of 1981). According to the second respondent, the 49 workmen mentioned in their petition dated 10. 2002 have not been made permanent even though they had worked for 480 days in a period of 24 calender months. After affording opportunities to the petitioner, the competent authority, viz., first respondent, passed an order directing the confirmation of permanent status to the said workmen vide his order dated 26. 2003. The said order came to be challenged before the single Judge in W.P.No.22606 of 2006 by the appellant on the ground that even though the said workmen were receiving benefits on par with permanent and Badli workmen, they are not entitled for confirmation of permanent status and that the Union cannot file on behalf of the workmen; that the first respondent had not inspected the premises and scrutinised the documents and that the first respondent should have conducted a detailed enquiry. Further, it was stated that the five workmen have already left the service of the appellant under the voluntary retirement scheme. 3. Before the learned Judge, a counter affidavit was filed by the second respondent and after hearing both parties, the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. It has been stated by the learned Judge that in terms of Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Act 46 of 1981, the Act itself provides for a deemed confirmation and that the writ petitioner has not disputed the length of service put in by any of the workmen and once, the length of service is not disputed, it is unnecessary to further probe into any records kept in the factory of the appellant and the documentary evidence produced by the appellant are sufficient to make the order impugned in the writ petition. 4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and have perused the records. 5. 4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and have perused the records. 5. Before us, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the subject matter of permanency of the workmen was pending reference before the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai under reference No.G.O. (D) No.688 Labour and Employment Department dated 19. 2001 and such a contention is not available to the appellant because Tamil Nadu Act 46 of 1981 is a special enactment and provides for its own procedure and it is one additional mode by which workmen can seek permanency. Therefore, pendency of any reference on the said issue may not be relevant for the authority to decide the issue before him. 6. Regarding the second contention, it is clearly found that the appellant did not seriously dispute the length of service put in by the workmen, before the authority and the authority had sufficient evidence to come to the conclusion that the workmen had completed 480 days of service in 24 calender months. Once that factum is proved, Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Act 42 of 1981 makes the permanency automatic without any scope for further enquiry. Besides this, the power vested on the first respondent is of summary nature and he is not required to conduct any elaborate enquiry. In the present case, the length of service of the workmen is not disputed. Therefore, there is no further enquiry contemplated in the Act. 7. In the light of the above, there are no merits in the appeal and the same shall stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition will also stand dismissed.