Judgment :- 1. These two writ petitions arise out of a common order passed by the Inspector of labour, Theni in his proceedings in R.C.No.848 of 2002 dated 29/11/2002. Therefore, both were heard together and they are disposed of by this common order. 2. The respondents 2 to 18 in W.P.No.4675 of 2004 and few others filed a petition in R.C.No.848 of 2002 under section 3(1) of the Tamilnadu Industrial Establishments (conferment of Permanent status to workmen) Act, 1981 seeking a direction to the petitioners in W.P.No.4675 of 2004 viz., the Tamilnadu Water Supply and Drainage Board to confer permanent status to them. The said petition was allowed and the Inspector of Labour, Theni who was the Authority under the Tamilnadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 directed the Tamilnadu Water Supply and Drainage Board to confer permanent status on the employees. Challenging the same, the Board has come up with the writ petition in W.P.No.4675 of 2004. Seeking a direction to the Board to implement the order of the Authority, the employees have come up with the writ petition in W.P.No.3809 of 2004. 3. For the sake of brevity, the respondents 2 to 18 in W.P.No.4675 of 2004 who are petitioners in W.P.No.3809 of 2004 shall be referred to as the employees and the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board shall be referred to as the Board in this Order. 4. The Tamil Nadu Water supply and Drainage Board is a statutory body created under the Tamil Nadu Act 4 of 1971. One of the functions of the Board is to execute the water supply schemes of the Government. It is further alleged by the Board that after the schemes are completed, the same will be handed over to the concerned Local Body for maintenance along with the staff. According to the Board, such schemes were implemented in few villages in Theni district. After completion of the scheme, the maintenance of the water supply should be carried out by the local panchayat concerned. But the panchayats could not do so due to various difficulties. Therefore, an understanding was reached between the local panchayat and the Board under which the Board agreed to maintain the Water supply schemes. For the said purpose, according to the Board, it entered into a contract with private contractors to whom the maintenance work was entrusted. But the panchayats could not do so due to various difficulties. Therefore, an understanding was reached between the local panchayat and the Board under which the Board agreed to maintain the Water supply schemes. For the said purpose, according to the Board, it entered into a contract with private contractors to whom the maintenance work was entrusted. According to the Board, for the execution of maintenance work, the cost was paid in terms of the agreement to the respective contractors. The contractors in turn had engaged these employees and through them the contractors executed the work of maintenance of the water supply schemes. Thus, according to the Board, the employees were not at all employed by the Board. Instead, they were employed only by independent contractors. Therefore, according to the Board, these employees had nothing to do with the Board and so they are not entitled for any benefit from the Board including conferment of permanent status. 5. But the employees’ contention is that they were employed directly by the Board and they were not employed by the contractors, wages to them were all paid only by the Board. It is their contention that they have worked for more than 480 days continuously. It is their further contention that they are entitled for permanent status as per the Act. With these contentions, they filed the petition before the Authority for a direction. Along with the application, an Annexure containing the details of the service particulars of the employees showing that they had worked under the Board for more than 480 days as required under the Act was also furnished. 6. After holding elaborate enquiry, the Authority found that the employees are entitled for permanent status as they had worked for more than 480 days under the Board. The contention of the Board that they were employed only by the contractors was not accepted by the Authority on the ground that the Board had not obtained the required Licence as per the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 and the contractors also had not obtained due licence under the said Act. Thus on these findings, the Authority passed the impugned order directing the Board to confer permanent status on these employees. Thus on these findings, the Authority passed the impugned order directing the Board to confer permanent status on these employees. The Authority also has referred to the settlement reached between few more persons who were similarly placed like that of these employees under section 12 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, in which, the Board agreed to confer permanent status on them. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the Board would contend that the order of the Authority is not at all sustainable on three grounds. First and foremost ground is that the employees were not employed directly by the Board and therefore they are not entitled for permanent status. This contention cannot be accepted for the simple reason that admittedly the Board has not obtained the employers Licence as required under Contract Labour (regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. Similarly, contractors also had not obtained Licence under the said Act. Therefore, as per the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, the Board ought not to have engaged any contractor for engaging contract labourers. Having violated the provisions of the Contract Labour (regulation and Abolition)Act, the Board cannot now take advantage of the said illegality so as to say that the employees were not employed by the Board directly. The authority has found from the materials placed before it that the employees were employed directly only by the Board. This factual finding cannot be interfered with by this Court because the same cannot be stated to be perverse. Therefore, I concur with the said finding of the Authority that these employees were employed directly by the Board on daily wage basis. In the Annexure to the claim statement, the employees have given the date of joining of each employee and that has been annexed to impugned order as well, which shows that they have worked for more than 480 days. 8. But the learned counsel appearing for the Board would stoutly oppose the same. According to him, there is no proof as such that they worked for more than 480 days. He would submit that since the employees were not directly employed by the Board, the Board had no record to show the number of days during which the employees were engaged. This argument also deserves only to be rejected. According to him, there is no proof as such that they worked for more than 480 days. He would submit that since the employees were not directly employed by the Board, the Board had no record to show the number of days during which the employees were engaged. This argument also deserves only to be rejected. Had it obtained due licence under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, it would have maintained the appropriate register as required under the Act. Having failed to get appropriate licence and having failed to maintain any records like contract labour register, etc., it will not be open for the Board now to contend that the employees concerned had worked for less than 480 days. In my considered opinion, the Board cannot be allowed to take advantage of its own fault. As has been pointed out earlier, from the materials available on record the Authority has come to the conclusion that the employees have worked for more than 480 days. I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. 9. Nextly, the learned counsel appearing for the Board would contend that the employees were not engaged as against any sanctioned post and therefore, they are not entitled for any benefit under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen ) Act. When it was pointed out to the learned counsel appearing for the Board that several such employees were made permanent as per the settlement reached between the workers under Section 12 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the learned counsel submitted that they were employees working as NMRs with the Board and therefore the said settlement was reached and they were given permanent status. 10. Of course, it may be true that they were employed by the Board as NMR workers. But when a further query was made to the learned counsel as to whether those NMR workers for whom permanent status is now conferred had worked as against any sanctioned post , the learned Counsel submitted that they had not worked as against any sanctioned post. If that is the fact, than it will not be reasonable for the Board to Contend that in the case of the petitioners alone permanent status will not be given because they were not engaged as against any sanctioned post. If that is the fact, than it will not be reasonable for the Board to Contend that in the case of the petitioners alone permanent status will not be given because they were not engaged as against any sanctioned post. When the Board has conferred permanent status on the NMR workers who were engaged not against any sanctioned post, I do not find any reason for the Board to discriminate the employees herein alone. If it is possible for the Board to confer permanent status on NMRs, who worked not against any sanctioned post, the same benefit ought to have been extended to the employees herein also and the same should not have been denied by taking a different stand saying that they did not work against any sanctioned post. Therefore, the last argument of the learned counsel appearing for the Board also deserves only to be rejected. 11. In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Authority which has been impugned in the writ petition in W.P.No.4675 of 2004. Thus, I do not find any merit in W.P.No.4675 of 2004 and therefore the same is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. 12. Now turning to the writ petition in W.P.No.3809 of 2004 the prayer in this writ petition is for a direction to the Board to implement the order of the Authority which is the subject matter of challenge in W.P.No.4675 of 2004. Since the order of the Authority is confirmed, as a corollary there has to be a direction to the Board to implement the order of the Authority. Thus, W.P.No.3809 of 2004 deserves to be allowed and the employees are entitled for the direction as prayed for. 13. In the result, W.P.No.4675 of 2004 is dismissed and W.P.No.3809 of 2004 is allowed with a direction to the Tamilnadu Water supply and Drainage Board to implement the order of the Authority/Inspector of Labour, Theni made in R.C.NO.848 of 2002,dated 29/11/2002, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.