Judgment :- B. Rajendran, J. 1. Originally, the employees in all the writ appeals, (hereinafter referred to as "the first respondent"), who were employed as daily wages casual labourers with the appellant Management, contended that they have worked continuously for more than 480 days in two years and therefore, they were entitled for the benefits and rights conferred under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). 2. As the representation made by them and their Union were not considered, they approached the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, who in his proceedings in N.E.12617/95, dated 3. 1996, had confirmed the permanent status as per the provisions of the Act. The appellant Management has failed to implement the statutory orders. The first respondent filed claim petitions in C.P.Nos. 80, 82, 87, 89 and 102 of 1996, before the labour Court, Tirunelveli, under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, claiming the salaries of permanent workmen and recover dues from the appellant Management, In this context, it is to be mentioned that originally 91 irregular appointed employees on daily wages basis, out of which, 86 employees, subsequent to the issue of the said G.O.Ms.No.148, Animal Husbandary and Fish and Dairy Development Department, dated 19. 2000, by the fourth respondent in the writ appeals have availed the benefits given under the Government Order. However, not being satisfied with the concession granted in the said G.O., only five of them, who are arrayed as the first respondent in all the writ appeals, have filed the claim petitions claiming the benefits from the date of their appointment, in pursuance of the alleged permanent status given by the proceedings of the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, dated 3. 1996. 3. All the claim petitions of the first respondents were tried together and a common award was passed by the labour Court, Tirunelveli, on 20.9.2001. As per the common award of the labour Court, even though as per G.O.Ms.No.148, Animal Husbandary and Fish and Dairy Development Department, dated 19. 1996. 3. All the claim petitions of the first respondents were tried together and a common award was passed by the labour Court, Tirunelveli, on 20.9.2001. As per the common award of the labour Court, even though as per G.O.Ms.No.148, Animal Husbandary and Fish and Dairy Development Department, dated 19. 2000, 75 Junior Masdoor supernumerary posts were created and the employees, who were referred in the Government order, were ordered to be regularised with effect from the date of the issuance of the Government Order, the labour Court concluded that the first respondents are entitled to permanency under Section 3(1) of the Act from the date of their appointment and claimed monetary benefits accordingly. 4. Aggrieved against the said common award of the labour Court, Tirunelveli, dated 20.9.2001, made in C.P.Nos.80, 82, 87, 89 and 102 of 1996, the appellant Management filed writ petitions before this Court in W.P.Nos.6826, 6831, 6832, 6834 and 7000 of 2002, seeking to quash the award insofar as it awarded compensation amounts. The first respondent also filed the writ petitions in W.P.Nos.42780, 42781, 42782, 42783 and 42784 of 2002 seeking for writs of mandamus directing the appellant Management to confer the permanent status to the first respondents as per the order given by the Chief Inspector of Factories dated 3. 1996. 5. The appellant Management resisted the said writ petitions on the ground that the Chief Inspector of Factories do not have any jurisdiction to pass orders as the first respondents were not appointed in a sanctioned post but only on a daily wage basis; that to help the persons, who have been employed without sanctioned strength, the Government created 75 Junior Masdoor supernumerary posts pursuant to the said G.O.Ms.No.148, dated 19. 2000 and the first respondents were absorbed in that newly created Junior Masdoor supernumerary posts as such, they would only be entitled to get permanent status only with effect from the date of coming into force of the said G.O. dated 19. 2000. 2000 and the first respondents were absorbed in that newly created Junior Masdoor supernumerary posts as such, they would only be entitled to get permanent status only with effect from the date of coming into force of the said G.O. dated 19. 2000. As they were originally appointed against the Supernumerary strength, they will not be entitled to any other benefits; that out of 91 employees, 86 of them have already accepted the benefits given under the Government Order and only the first respondents who are five in number have come with these writ petitions seeking the benefits with effect from the date of their joining or from the date of their original appointment. 6. The first respondent, who have filed the writ petitions originally only for writs of mandanaus directing the appellant Management to confer the permanent status to the first respondent as per the order given by the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories dated 3. 1996. Later on, they amended the prayers to that effect to quash the said G.O.Ms. No.148, dated 19. 2000 and consequently direct the appellant Management to confer the permanent status to the first respondent as per the order of the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories dated 3. 1996. 7. Since the two different writ petitions one filed by the first respondent to get the permanent status as per the order of the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, the other filed by the appellant Management, which has challenged the award passed by the labour Court, were intern inked and the subject involved in both the writ petitions are one and the same, all the matters were posted together and all the writ petitions were jointly taken up by the learned single Judge and disposed of. 8. Relying upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in Justine, L. v. Registrar of Co-operative Societies 2002 (4) CTC 385 : 2003-1-LLJ-284 wherein the Division Bench of this Court categorically held that "that either the provisions of Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workman) Act, 1981 or the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, or the settlements entered under Sections 12 or 18 thereof, shall have no application to the staff of the co-operative societies appointed without adequate qualifications or beyond the cadre strength for the period from 9.07.1980 to 13. 2001, has come to the conclusion that unless the cadre strength is approved by the Government, no persons, who are appointed beyond the cadre strength, would not be entitled to seek any benefit pursuant to their appointment nor claim any back wages merely based upon the proceedings of the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories made Under the provisions of the Act. Ultimately, the learned single Judge has taken into consideration of the interim order of the Court whereby the appellant Management was directed to deposit 50% of the amount claimed by the first respondent be-fore the labour Court and taking into consideration the concession given up by the first respondent that they are not seeking for the balance of 50% of the amount had ultimately held that even though the services of the first respondent were regularised only with effect from the date of G.O. Ms. No. 148, dated 19. 2000, the first respondents in these cases are still entitled for continuity of service from the date of the proceedings of the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, dated 3. 1996 for the purpose of calculating the terminal benefits. 9. Heard both sides. 10. The appellant Management aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge as against the grant of continuity of service from the date of the proceedings of the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, dated 3. 1996 in W.P.Nos.4780, 42781, 42782, 42783 and 42784 of 2002 has preferred to file the writ appeals in W.A.Nos.2910, 2911, 2913, 2914 and 2912 of 2004. Similarly, as against the claim petitions filed by the first respondent, which were awarded by the labour Court, the appellant Management filed the writ petitions challenging the award in W.P.Nos.6826, 6831, 6832, 6834 and 7000 of 2002 and pursuant to the common order in the writ petitions, the appellant Management has chosen to prefer the writ appeals in W.A.Nos.1009, 1011 and 1010 of 2005, W.A.Nos.1041 of 2005 and W.A.No.1307 of 2005. 11. The consolidated table is also given in respect of the cases filed by the appellant Management and the first respondent. Writ Petitions filed by the appellant Management and the connected writ appeals. 11. The consolidated table is also given in respect of the cases filed by the appellant Management and the first respondent. Writ Petitions filed by the appellant Management and the connected writ appeals. C.P. No. 80 of 1996 W.P. No. 6826 of 2002 W.A. No. 1009 of 2005 C.P. No. 82 of 1996 W.P. No. 6831 of 2002 W.A.No. 1011 of 2005 C.P. No. 87 of 1996 W.P. No. 6832 of 2002 W.P. No. 1010 of 2005 C.P. No. 89 of 1996 W.P. No. 6834 of 2002 W.P. No. 1041 of 2005 C.P. No. 102 of 1996 W. P. No. 7000 of 2002 W.A.No. 1307 of 2005 Writ Petitions filed by the Workmen and the connected writ appeals filed by the Management. W.P. No. 42780 of 2002 W. A. No. 2910 of 2004 W.P. No. 42781 of 2002 W. A. No. 2911 of 2004 W.P. No. 42782 of 2002 W.A. No. 2913 of 2004 W.P. No. 42783 of 2002 W.A. No. 2914 of 2004 W.P. No. 42784 of 2002 W.A. No. 2912 of 2004 12. In this connection, the appellant Management has given the list of dates and events, which are not disputed by the first respondent, in which the appellant Management has specifically pointed out that insofar as the writ appeals in W.A. No. 2913 of 2004 and W.A.No 1009 of 2005 are concerned, the first respondent, namely, H. Nambi Alwar, who filed the writ petitions to confer the permanent status and the claim petition, has been dismissed from service on 211. 2002. It is also admitted that the first respondents were appointed when there were no cadre strength at the time of appointment. 13. The main contention of the appellant Management is that though originally the first respondent in all the writ appeals were appointed on daily wages basis not in the sanctioned strength, subsequent to the issue of G.O.Ms. No.148, Animal Husbandary and Fish and Dairy Development Department, dated 19. 2000, 75 Junior Masdoor supernumerary posts were created only to regularise the unauthorised appointment which is inclusive of the respective first respondent in these cases and especially when all the other appointees accepted, they alone have chosen to challenge the Government order itself; that if the said Government order under which they were regularised is challenged that would disentitle them to got the relief sought for. 14. 14. The facts involved in these cases have been covered by the said decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported in Justine, L. v. Registrar of Co-operative Societies (supra), wherein it has been categorically held that the appointment of the staff made to the co-operative societies by the elected bodies or the officers in charge in violation of the cadre strength or the prescriptions of the educational qualifications, cannot stand and are held to be null and void. The Permanency Act of 1981 or Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, cannot be pressed into service. Non-obstante clause in the above enactments have to be read down to be in consonance with the legal principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in Ashwini Kumar v. State of Bihar AIR 1997 SC 1628 : (1997) 2 SCC 1 : 1997-II-LLJ-856. 15. From the narration of facts, it is very clear that the appointment, which are made by the society, are made without reference to employment exchange, without adherence to prescribed qualifications and beyond sanctioned strength prescribed for work force does not create any legal right even in a case of permanency status is granted by the authority as enumerated in the decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported in Justine, L. v. Registrar of Co-operative Societies (supra). 16. Above all these things, when the Government has come forward with the said G.O. dated 19. 2000 and created posts for regularising them and the said benefits were availed, now it is not open to the first respondents in these cases to contend that they must be paid other benefits from the date of their appointment. The learned single Judge ought not to have granted the benefits with effect from the date of their appointment. As found supra, the appointment itself is not legal, subsequent confirmation will not give any right to claim benefits prior to their regularization by the Government order nor they are entitled to any remedy, much less seeking for permanent status from the date of their appointment. Therefore, the appellant Management is not liable to pay benefits prior to the data of G.O.Ms. No.148, Animal Husbandary and Fish and Dairy, Development Department, dated 19. 2000. 17. Therefore, the appellant Management is not liable to pay benefits prior to the data of G.O.Ms. No.148, Animal Husbandary and Fish and Dairy, Development Department, dated 19. 2000. 17. It is pertinent to point out here that the appellant Management has confined its argument only in respect of challenging the finding No. (iii) of the common order of the learned single Judge of this Court. It has also made it very clear that the appellant Management paid 50% of the back wages as per the interim order of the Court and similarly, the first respondents in all the cases have given an undertaking. As per the undertaking recorded by the Court they are not pressing for the balance of 50% of the back wages. The learned single Judge has clearly mentioned in his order that the petitioners are not entitled for the balance 50% of the back wages. Finding No. (i) of the common order of the learned single Judge of this Court reads thus: "(i) The petitioners are not entitled for the balance 50% of the amount based on the award dated 20.9.2001 passed by the labour Court, Tirunelvali in C.P.Nos. 89, 80, 82, 87 and 102 of 1996". 18. For the reasons stated above, the writ appeals in W.A. Nos. 2910, 2911, 2912, 2913 and 2914 of 2004, W.A.Nos.1009, 1010 and 1011 of 2005, W.A.Nos.130-7 of 2005 and W.A.No.1041 of 2005 filed by the appellant Management are allowed to the extent indicated below i.e., the finding No. (iii) in the common order that "the petitioners are entitled for continuity of service from the date of proceedings of the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, dated 3. 1996 for the purpose of calculating the terminal benefits" is set aside by modifying to the effect that "the first respondents in all the cases are regularised only with effect from 19. 2000." Consequently, connected W.A.M.P.Nos.5384 to 5388 of 2004 and W.A.M.P.No.2523 to 2527 of 2005 are closed. No costs.