Judgment F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J. Writ Appeal Nos.1430 and 1431 of 2000 have been preferred against the common order passed by the learned single Judge dated 27. 2000 in W.P.No.15236 and 17147 of 1998 and Writ Petition No.17133 of 2001 has been filed by the appellant Corporation, challenging the order of the Inspector of Labour, Circle-III, Nandanam, dated 33. 2001 in E/4600/2000, directing the appellant to confer permanent status to 53 persons as mentioned in the Annexure-1 to the said order. W.P.No.15241 of 2009 has been preferred by 22 persons out of 53 persons mentioned in Annexure-I in the order of Inspector of Labour, Circle-III, dated 33. 2001 seeking for issuance of mandamus to provide them permanent employment in the appellant – Corporation. 2. For the sake of convenience, the Appellant in W.A.Nos.1430 and 1431 of 2000 will be referred as the Appellant and Inspector of Labour, Circle – III, Nandanam, viz., second respondent in W.P.No.17133 of 2001 as respondent and the petitioners in W.P.No.15241 of 2009 who are represented by the first respondent in W.P.No.17133 of 2001 as petitioners. 3. Since the writ appeals and the writ petitions are inter-linked we dispose of the same by this common judgment. 4. The brief facts which are required to be stated are that the appellant – Corporation was incorporated as a Company under the Companies Act 1956 on 7. 1994. It is engaged in the work of distribution of medicines for the various hospitals run through out the State. It is stated that the services of various employees were engaged by the appellant from the year 1995 onwards. At that point of time, there was no Service Rules or Regulations governing such employment. Such appointments were not governed by any other statutory Rules. In the year 1997 and 1998 there were several representations by the Union representing such employees for their regularisation. As there was no response from the appellant – Corporation, the Union representing the employees filed W.P.No.15236 of 1998 for a direction to the appellant – Corporation for regularisation of their services under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to workmen) Act,(XLVI of 1981) hereinafter called "the Act", contending that such employees were employed for 480 days of continuous service in 24 calendar months. In W.M.P.No.23015 of 1998 in W.P.No.15236 1998 an order of interim injunction was granted as against the appellant – Corporation from terminating the services of the members of the Union. 5. Subsequently, those employees were not allowed to work on Saturdays. Another writ petition came to be filed in W.P.17147 of 1998 for issuance of a mandamus both against the State of Tamil Nadu as well as the appellant – Corporation for a direction to provide employment to the members of the Union to work on Saturdays and also backwages for the previous four Saturdays. The said writ petition was disposed of by a common order dated 27. 2000. The said decision has been reported in TAMIL NADU MEDICAL SERVICES CORPORATION EMPLOYEES WELFARE UNION v. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU [2000 (3) M.L.J., 201]. The learned single Judge ultimately held that Act 46 of 1981 is applicable to the appellant – Corporation and that the concerned Inspector under Section 3 of the said Act who can inspect the premises and verify the records of the Corporation, was directed to consider the claims of the Union for conferment of permanent status as well as the right of the members of the Union to work on Saturdays. The learned single Judge also directed the Inspector to inspect and consider the claim for permanency as well as other claims after affording an opportunity to both parties and decide the same within three months. There was also a direction to the appellant – Corporation as well as the employees to maintain status quo. 6. It is against the said order of the learned single Judge, Writ Appeal Nos.1430 and 1431 of 2000 have been preferred. In those writ appeals, interim order came to be passed on 110. 2000 wherein a Division Bench has stated that the service of the workers cannot be continued though the order of interim stay granted by the Division Bench on 9. 2000 will not debar the Inspector of Labour to decide the issue independently without prejudice to any of the observations made by the Court and in accordance with law. The Division Bench also stated that the decision should be rendered by the Inspector of Labour, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Thereafter, the Inspector of Labour Circle-III, passed the order dated 33. The Division Bench also stated that the decision should be rendered by the Inspector of Labour, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Thereafter, the Inspector of Labour Circle-III, passed the order dated 33. 2001 which has been impugned in W.P.No.17133 of 2001 at the instance of the Corporation. In the said order, the Inspector of Labour, Circle – III, has held that 53 employees who fall within his jurisdiction were entitled for conferment of permanent status by virtue of the Act and they were in service continuously for 480 days in 24 calendar months. In respect of certain other employees, he held that since they were not coming under his jurisdiction, he had no authority to consider their rights and their claims were rejected. It is by virtue of the said order 22 employees out of 53 have come forward with W.P.No.15241 of 2009 seeking for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the appellant - Corporation to implement the order of the Inspector of Labour, dated 33. 2001. 7. In the Writ Appeals at the instance of the employees Union, C.M.P.Nos.15291 and 15292 of 2001 came to be filed praying that the appellant – Corporation is directed to implement the orders of the Inspector of Labour dated 33. 2001 during the pendency of that appeal. An order was passed on 24. 2002 to the following effect:- "2. In the above circumstances, we are of the view that inasmuch as the Inspector of Labour has passed a detailed order considering the rival stand of the writ appellant as well as the petitioner in there miscellaneous petitions, and at least in so far as 53 employees are concerned, it has been found that they had worked for more than 480 days in a period of 24 calendar months, prima facie, there is every justification in the claim of the petitioner in these miscellaneous petitions to seek for appropriate directions. 3. We, therefore, direct the writ appellant to continue to engage such of those persons who, according to the petitioner in these miscellaneous petitions, namely seven in number, are continued to be employed even as on this date and continue such engagement till the disposal of the Writ Appeal. As far as the others who are shown in Annexure-I to the order of the Inspector of Labour dated 33. As far as the others who are shown in Annexure-I to the order of the Inspector of Labour dated 33. 2001 are concerned, the writ appellant, if and when goes in for any casual engagement, should give preference only to those employees from and out of the said list, and without offering employment to those persons, the writ appellant should not provide employment to any outsiders pending disposal of the Writ Appeal as well as Writ Petition No.17133 of 2001." (Emphasis added) Therefore, out of 53 employees for whom the Inspector of Labour Circle-III, granted relief, claims of only 22 employees who are the petitioners in W.P.No.15241 of 2009 alone survives as on date. 8. Before going into the merits and demerits of the claims of the respective parties, at the outset, it will have to be stated that in the light of the order of the Inspector of Labour, Circle-III, dated 33. 2001, the Writ Appeals have virtually become infructuous. Writ Appeals are directed against the order of the learned single Judge reported in 2003 M.L.J., 201 supra. As stated by us earlier substantive part of the direction of the learned single Judge in the said judgment was a direction to the Inspector of Labour, Circle-III, to consider the claims of the employees for conferment of permanent status and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Since there was no Appeal as against the said direction, the order dated 33. 2001 had been passed. This is the subject matter of challenge in W.P.No.17133 of 2001. Therefore, there is nothing to be dealt with in those writ appeals and the same are therefore, dismissed as having become infructuous. 9. As far as the challenge made to the order of the Inspector of Labour, Circle-III, is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant Corporation placed reliance upon the decision of the Honble the Supreme Court reported in SECY. STATE OF KARNATAKA v. UMADEVI (3) [2006 (4) S.C.C., 1] and made particular reference to paragraph Nos.4 and 47 and contended that the Honble the Supreme Court went to the extent to regularise the irregular appointments in public services. STATE OF KARNATAKA v. UMADEVI (3) [2006 (4) S.C.C., 1] and made particular reference to paragraph Nos.4 and 47 and contended that the Honble the Supreme Court went to the extent to regularise the irregular appointments in public services. According to learned counsel, all the 22 employees concerned in this litigation, though were engaged at the time of inception of the appellant – Corporation, were not employed on a regular basis, that their engagement was not governed by any Rules or Regulations, and therefore, unmindful of the said situation, the Inspector of Labour, Circle-III, ought not to have directed the appellant – Corporation to confer permanent status to them. 10. As far as the said contention is concerned, Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners/ employees, has pointed out that there is a distinction between the irregular employment and illegal employment and the entry into service of any of the petitioners/ employees was either irregular or illegal and therefore, there is no question of any illegality in the order passed by Inspector of Labour, Circle-III. According to the learned counsel, when the appellant – Corporation came to be incorporated, admittedly, there were no Rules governing the service conditions of the employees and all the petitioners were employed either directly or on deputation from other Departments, in a lawful manner. It was therefore contended that when induction into service was lawful, they were entitled to be considered for the grant of statutory benefits under Act 46 of 1981 which cannot be assailed as contended by learned counsel for the appellant Corporation. 11. We find force in the submission of the learned counsel. In paragraph No.53 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in UMADEVIs case, supra, the distinction as between the irregular appointment and illegal appointment has been pointed out. In respect of illegal appointment the Supreme Court has made it clear that they can have no right to seek for any relief, while in respect of irregular appointees, steps can be taken to regularise their services as a one time measure. Therefore, in respect of irregular appointments such regularisation can be considered. We are of the view that all the petitioners/ employees were employed at the time of incorporation of the appellant – Corporation and such employment can never be held as illegal or even irregular. Therefore, in respect of irregular appointments such regularisation can be considered. We are of the view that all the petitioners/ employees were employed at the time of incorporation of the appellant – Corporation and such employment can never be held as illegal or even irregular. The claims of such employees after nearly a period of 3 to 5 years of their employment cannot be said to be totally lacking in any deficiency while seeking for implementation of permanent status. Therefore, on that score, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the Inspector of Labour, Circle-III, impugned in W.P.No.17133 of 2001. No other substantive ground has been raised challenging the said order of Inspector of Labour on facts and therefore, we do not find any scope to interfere with the direction of the Inspector of Labour, Circle-III, granting permanent status to 53 employees of whom 22 employees who have come before us. 12. Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners/employees relied upon the following decisions in support of his submissions:- .(i) V.RADHAKRISHNAN v. REGISTRAR, CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL [2007 (4)M.L.J.,650]; .(ii) HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPN.Ltd. v. P.O.[2009 (1) M.L.J., 1115]; (iii) THE COMMISSIONER, TIRUVALLUR MUNICIPALITY, TIRUVALLUR ETC. v. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, I ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, MADRAS ETC. & OTHERS (2002 WRIT L.R.,419); .(iv) T.N.C.S.CORPN. MODERN RICE MILL ENGG. SECTION EMPLOYEES ETC. UNION v. T.N.C.S.CORPN. (1998 WRIT L.R.,514); .(v) S.A.BALAJI v. PUNJAB & SIND BANK [2008 (1) L.L.N.,906]; .(vi) S.VIJAYALAKSHMI v. TAMIL NADU WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD (2006 WRIT L.R.,91); (vii) INDIAN COUNCIL OF MEDICAL RESEARCH v. K.RAJALAKSHMI [2005 (1) L.L.N.,884]. 13. In the decision reported in 2009 (1) M.L.J.,1115, the learned single Judge of this Court considered the issue as to how far the right of an employee under the provisions of Act 46 of 1981 can be considered vis-a-vis the decision of the Honble the Supreme Court in Umadevis case supra. The learned Judge took the view that in the light of the statutory benefits provided under Act 46 of 1981 which is a valid State enactment the benefit can be extended in appropriate cases. It has also been held by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in MAHARASHTRA SRTC v. CASTERIBE RAJYA PARIVAHAN KARMACHARI SANGHATANA [2009 (8) S.C.C.,556] that such right can be independently examined and granted de hors the said decision of the Honble the Supreme Court. It has also been held by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in MAHARASHTRA SRTC v. CASTERIBE RAJYA PARIVAHAN KARMACHARI SANGHATANA [2009 (8) S.C.C.,556] that such right can be independently examined and granted de hors the said decision of the Honble the Supreme Court. The learned Judge has set out the legal position in paragraph Nos.37 and 38 which read as under: "37. Further, it must also be that the constitutional validity of the Tamil Nadu Act 46 of 1981 was upheld by the Supreme Court vide its judgment in STATE OF TAMIL NADU v. NELLAI COTTON MILLS LTD. AND OTHERS [1990 (2) S.C.C.,518). 38. Once there is a valid State enactment providing for relief to such of those workmen deemed permanency to those who had completed 480 days of service within a period of two calendar years then, such workmen getting permanent status cannot be questioned by any Management. Such conferment of permanent status to the workmen cannot be labelled as violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The effect of a local enactment conferring permanent status to workmen was never considered by any Court so far." We fully endorse the statement of law as declared by the learned single Judge. 14. In fact in a recent decision of the Supreme Court reported in MAHARASHTRA SRTC v. CASTERIBE RAJYA PARIVAHAN KARMCHARI SANGHATANA [2009 (8) S.C.C.,556] the Honble the Supreme Court has taken a similar view in paragraph Nos.35 and 36 which can also be usefully referred to which read as under:- "35.Umadevi (3) is an authoritative pronouncement for the proposition that the Supreme Court (Article 32) and the High Courts (Article 226) should not issue directions of absorption, regularisation or permanent continuance of temporary, contractual, casual, daily wage or ad hoc employees unless the recruitment itself was made regularly in terms of the constitutional scheme. 36. Umadevi (3) does not denude the Industrial and Labour Courts of their statutory power under Section 30 read with Section 32 of the MRTU and PULP Act to order permanency of the workers who have been victims of unfair labour practice on the part of the employer under Item 6 of Schedule IV where the posts on which they have been working exist. Umadevi (3) cannot be held to have overridden the powers of the Industrial and Labour Courts in passing appropriate order under Section 30 of the MRTU and PULP Act, once unfair labour practice on the part of the employer under Item 6 of Schedule IV is established." 15. When we heard learned counsel for the respective parties as to certain other aspects, viz., the petitioners/ employees were denied employment after the order of the Division Bench dated 110. 2000, wherein it was stated that the services of these employees cannot be continued while the Inspector of Labour was directed to proceed with the hearing and pass final orders. In the light of the said order of the Division Bench dated 110. 2000, services of 20 employees came to be terminated by the appellant – Corporation. Therefore, while considering the grant of relief as claimed by the petitioners in W.P.No.15241 of 2009, we have to keep in mind the above position viz., that they were not working or contributed their labour all these years i.e. between 2000 and 2009. 16. That apart, there was a subsequent development by which a Government Order came to be passed in G.O.Ms.No.383, Health and Family Welfare (H2) Department, dated 111. 2008, in and by which the State Government after considering the proposal of the Managing Director of the appellant – Corporation, ratified his action for having created 379 posts in 26 categories indicated in the Annexure to the said G.O. without prior approval of the Government by relaxing stipulation contained in G.O.(Ms) No.27, Finance (BPE) Department dated 21. 2002. The said G.O. set out various posts numbering 26 and the scale of pay corresponding to the respective posts. As on date, the appellant Corporation has created several posts befitting the qualification of the petitioners. That apart in the order of the Division Bench dated 24. 2002, while taking note of the induction of seven of the employees out of 53 in the services of the appellant – Corporation, it was also stated that in respect of others as and when any casual engagement, is made available the same should be offered by way of giving preference to the petitioners/ employees and without offering employment to them the appellant – Corporation should not provide employment to any outsider pending writ appeals. Therefore, it has now become incumbent upon the appellant – Corporation to give preference in employment to the petitioners/ employees in the posts created and made available in G.O.Ms.No.383 dated 111. 2008 supra. 17. In fact, a list was placed before us at the instance of the appellant – Corporation wherein probable posts that can be offered to the petitioners/ employees. In the sanctioned posts and there is only one post of Steno-typist for which two names have been suggested viz., N.Muthlakshmi and G.Nachiyar. As far as N.Muthulakshmi, is concerned, her qualification is stated to be B.Com. whereas G.Nachiyar is concerned, though she qualified herself in Stenography in English Higher Grade, her academic qualification is stated to be Higher Secondary Grade. Therefore, we direct that the post of Steno can be offered to better qualified person viz., N.Muthulakshmi. The claim of G.Nachiyar can be considered along with remaining 11 employees in the other available posts. The names of the petitioners/ employees for the said list thus come to 11 which are as under:- Sl.No. Name of the Qualification Posts already persons worked 1 M.Ramachandran D.Pharm. Pharmacist 2 P.Balamurugan D.Pharm. Pharmacist 3 N.Muthulakshmi B.Com. Steno Typist 4 G.Nachiyar D.Com. Steno Typist 5 S.Dhanasekaran 9th Std. Driver 6 G.Nandakumar 10th Std. Driver 7 S.Ganesan Packer 8 S.Madhankumar 8th Std. Office Asst. 9 R.Thanikachalam 9th Std. Office Asst. 10 J.Sureshbabu 9th Std. Office Asst. 11 N.Selvaraj + 2 Office Asst. 12 C.Srinivasan 9th Std. Office Asst. Once the case of the above 11 employees can be provided as stated above in the respective posts befitting their qualification, the remaining 11 employees are stated to be as under:- Sl.No. Name of the Qualification Posts already persons worked 1 G.Sumathi M.A.,M.L.I.S. Assistant 2 M.Ramesh M.Com. Assistant 3 M.Chinnaraju B.Com. Assistant 4 Ayeshagani B.A. Assistant 5 Lakshmi Sundararajan M.Com.(M.B.A) Assistant 6 V.D.Vani M.A.,B.Ed. Assistant 7 Rajkumar,J. B.Sc. Assistant 8 K.Sundaramoorthy B.E. (Civil) Technical Asst. 9. T.Panneerselvam B.E. (Civil) Technical Asst. 10 M.Saravanakumar Diplomo in Civil Technical Asst. 11 G.Nachiyar +2 Shorthand Steno English Hr.Gr. 18. As far as the above 11 employees are concerned, we find that there were as many as 48 posts of Packers and various other posts. The petitioners/ employees have been agitating for their rights for more than a decade. 9. T.Panneerselvam B.E. (Civil) Technical Asst. 10 M.Saravanakumar Diplomo in Civil Technical Asst. 11 G.Nachiyar +2 Shorthand Steno English Hr.Gr. 18. As far as the above 11 employees are concerned, we find that there were as many as 48 posts of Packers and various other posts. The petitioners/ employees have been agitating for their rights for more than a decade. We are of the view that the appellant – Corporation can therefore immediately accommodate the 11 employees at least in the posts of Packers and that their employment opportunities in the appropriate posts befitting their qualification, can be considered after their induction into service. Since their entry into service at the initial stage was very much lawful and their discontinuance during the pendency of the writ petitions and writ appeals, was not due to their fault, we are of the view that even though they will not be entitled to for any wages during the period during which they remained unemployed, they are lawfully entitled for continuity of service from the date of their original induction into service which has now been directed to be confirmed as per the impugned order. 19. We also make it clear that since the conferment of permanent status to the petitioners/employees has to be conferred by virtue of the statutory orders passed by the Inspector of Labour, Circle-III, based on the factual finding rendered by him and their continuity of employment has been directed, it is needless to state that while providing them employment as per this judgment, all the 22 employees should be placed in the scale of pay which they would have drawn but for the interregnum during which they were out of service for no fault of theirs. In other words, the scale of pay should be fixed while providing employment as per this judgment by taking into account their period of service from the date of their initial appointment till the date of their reemployment. We also direct that the directions contained in this judgment to provide regular permanent employment as per the directions of the Inspector of Labour, Circle-III, should be carried out within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 20. In the result, we pass the following order:- i) Writ Appeal Nos.1430 and 1431 of 2000 stand dismissed as having become infructuous. 20. In the result, we pass the following order:- i) Writ Appeal Nos.1430 and 1431 of 2000 stand dismissed as having become infructuous. ii) W.P.No.17133 of 2001 is dismissed and the order of the Inspector of Labour, Circle- III, Nandanam, Chennai, is confirmed. iii) W.P.No.15241 of 2009 stands allowed. The appellant – Corporation is directed to provide employment to the petitioners/ employees as directed in paragraphs 17 to 19 of this order within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. iv) All the pending miscellaneous petitions are closed.