Judgment :- 1. Heard both sides. 2. The petitioner is Superintending Engineer, Coimbatore Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Coimbatore. Aggrieved by the Award passed by the Inspector of Labour, Coimbatore in Claim Numbers Na.Ka.94710 dated 15.2.1999, the present Writ Petition has been filed. 3. The respondents 2 to 12 claim that they were employed as contingent Sweeper, Scavenger and Water Carrier, They move the authority, namely the 1st respondent under section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981. The case of the contesting respondents was that they were paid consoldiated salary of Rs.120/- in various branches of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and they were working on part-time basis. Since they worked for more than two years and had put in more than 480 days of service, they are eligible for the grant of permanent status. 4. In response to the notice issued by the 1st respondent, the petitioner management gave a written statement dated 17.11.1998 stating that the name of 11 persons have been sent to the Board Headquarters for regularisation and was still under consideration. There are two workers alone who have not completed 480 days. A further contention was raised that since they are part-time employees and are doing work only two hours per day, the department did not have any attendance register. 5. The authority rejected both the contentions. He held that under section 2(4) of the Act (T.N.Act 46 of 1982), there is no difference between temporary and permanent employees and they are bound to work for cleaning toilets and the office place and it was their regular job and the work will have to be done before the start of the office and hence they cannot be held to be a part-time employees. The authority also inspected the documents and found that all the contesting respondents have worked more than 480 days. It was also recorded that the Executive Engineer by his letter dated 7.11.1998 and from the Board Proceedings No.95 dated 14.10.1998, even the part-time employees are eligible for grant of permanent status. It is in that view of the matter, the authority granted a declaratory relief that the workmen are entitled for permanency in terms of Section 3(1) of the Act. It is in that view of the matter, the authority granted a declaratory relief that the workmen are entitled for permanency in terms of Section 3(1) of the Act. In respect of the objections made regarding Rajamani and Baby, the authority found that subsequent to the filing of the application they would have completed 480 days and they are also eligible for the benefit under the Act. It is against this order, the present Writ Petition has been filed by the Board. 6. The Writ Petition was admitted on 3.1.2001. Pending the Writ Petition , this Court granted an order of status quo. Even after 10 years have lapsed the petitioner Board is not care to serve the respondents 2 and 12. On this particular ground, the Writ Petition is liable to be rejected. 7. Even otherwise in similar circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court presided by P.K.Misra, J., (as he then was) vide judgment in in Superintending Engineer, Nagapattinam Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Nagapattinam and others vs. Inspector of Labour, Pedari Koil Street, Thiruvarur and others reported in 2009 (4) MLJ 472 upheld the similar orders passed by the Inspector of Labour. 8. Though Mr.Sekar, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it refers to the regular workers and not part-time employees. However, in respect of the very same Electricity Board, this Court vide its judgment in K.Duraisamy vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and others reported in 1992 (2) LLJ 197 has held that the Act does not make any distinction between a full time and part-time workman and if the conditions specified in Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 are fulfilled, even a part-time workman is entitled for the grant of permanent status. That case also relates to a part-time Sweeper. 9. Therefore, it is too late for the petitioner to contend that the workmen are not entitled for the benefit. The authority also noted that even in respect of these contesting respondents, proposals have been sent from his office to the Headquarters. The authority also further noted that even the Boards proceedings have given such a declaration of permanency to the part-time workmen. 10. In the light of the above, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. The authority also further noted that even the Boards proceedings have given such a declaration of permanency to the part-time workmen. 10. In the light of the above, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. The petitioner Board is directed to implement the order of the Labour Court within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.