Judgment :- P. Devadass, J. This Writ Appeal has been directed by the appellants as against the order of Writ Court, dismissing their writ petition for issuing a direction to the Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd. shortly TANGEDCO, formerly, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, to regularise their services in pursuance of the orders of the Inspector of Labour, Karur, passed under Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 [hereinafter referred to as 'Act No.46 of 1981'] r/w. Rule 6(4) framed thereunder. 2. Appellants are the Writ Petitioners. Their case is as follows:- (i) 22 Petitioners and certain others are working as casual labourers in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. They were engaged to do digging pits, erection of electric poles, construction of transformers, loading and unloading of line materials etc. in Karur and Kulithalai Electricity Distribution Circle within the control of Assistant Engineers (Operation and Maintenance), Malaikovilur, Noyal, Puliyur, Karur, Paramathi, Chinnadharapuram, Pallapatti, Sukkaliyur and Thennilai. They have completed 480 days of service within 24 calendar months. (ii) As per Section 3 of Act No.46 of 1981, they became entitled to be made permanent. Their services have to be regularised with effect from their completion of the said period. They have requested the Board to regularise their services. However, it did not do so. In the circumstances, petitioners and certain others petitioned the Inspector of Labour, Karur, the competent authority under the said Act to direct the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board to make them permanent. (iii) On 15.2.2010, the said official brushing aside the contentions of the Board, directed the Board to accord permanent status to the petitioners in pursuance of the provisions of the said Act and the Rules framed thereunder within a prescribed time. However, the Board did not do so. Their representations also did not evoke any response from the Board. 3. In the circumstances, in this Court, in W.P.(MD) No.5822 of 2012, the petitioners have sought for issuance of Mandamus, to direct the respondent, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, now, TANGEDCO, to regularise their services, as directed by the Inspector of Labour, Karur. The respondents opposed it raising several grounds. 4. On 17.8.2012, the Writ Court dismissing the Writ Petition, holding as under:- "2. The writ petition is totally misconceived. The respondents opposed it raising several grounds. 4. On 17.8.2012, the Writ Court dismissing the Writ Petition, holding as under:- "2. The writ petition is totally misconceived. The Inspector exercises quasi judicial power under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status of Workmen) Act, 1981. Penalties can be imposed, if the order is not implemented. The remedy of the petitioners therefore is to approach the competent authority to enforce the order. This Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction does not execute the order passed by quasi judicial authority when the statute provides the remedy. Even otherwise, in view of the order passed by quasi judicial authority, which has attained finality in so far as the petitioners' status, is concerned no further action is called for. The Hon'ble High Court cannot be used as executing agency to execute an order passed by the Inspector, under the Act. ..." 5. Aggrieved, out of 22 petitioners, 20 of them have appealed. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that making them permanent is a statutory duty imposed upon the respondents under Act No.46 of 1981. However, in spite of the positive direction issued by the Competent Authority under the Act, the respondents failed to discharge their said duty, they have no other efficacious remedy than invoking the Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to compel the respondents to discharge their said statutory duty. 7. However, the learned counsel for the respondents disputes their claim. It is two fold, namely, legal and factual. Elaborating them, the learned counsel for the respondents contends as under:- The Inspector of Labour, Karur, has no adjudicatory power. He has been invested with only a limited power of enquiring the petitions preferred to him. He has no power to direct the respondents to make the appellants permanent. He has no judicial or quasi judicial power to adjudicate the claim of the appellants, namely, make them permanent. It is a dispute to be adjudicated upon by the Forums constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The appellants have to seek their remedy before the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai. Already with regard to similar claim, I.D.No.106 of 2000 is pending before the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai, as between the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and similar workers. The petitioners are contract labourers employed by independent contractors. There is no employer-employee relationship between them and the Board. The appellants have to seek their remedy before the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai. Already with regard to similar claim, I.D.No.106 of 2000 is pending before the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai, as between the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and similar workers. The petitioners are contract labourers employed by independent contractors. There is no employer-employee relationship between them and the Board. They have no proof to show that they are the labourers of the Board. They cannot rely on certificates issued by some incompetent Officers of the Electricity Board. Board's Recruitment depends on holding of prescribed qualification for various categorises of posts and also rules of Reservation. 8. We have anxiously considered the rival submissions, perused the materials on record and the impugned order of the Writ Court. 9. Now, we shall enter into their contentions. First, we shall see the legal issues and next the factual aspects. 10. The appellants are workers. They seek the benefit conferred upon certain categorises of industrial workers under Act No.46 of 1981. The said enactment is intended to give benefit to workmen in this State. It is a piece of Labour Legislation. It seeks to provide security of employment to industrial workers. It is also a social welfare legislation. 11. In connection with interpreting such type of legislations, in HARIJINDER SINGH Vs. PUNJAB STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION (Civil Appeal No.587 of 2010 (SLP (C) No.6966/2009)), dated 5.1.2010, Hon'ble Justice A.K.Ganguly observed as under:- "I am in clear agreement with Justice Singhvi that this court has a duty to interpret statutes with social welfare benefits in such a way as to further the statutory goal and not to frustrate it." "In doing so, this court should make an effort to protect the rights of the weaker sections in view of the clear constitutional mandate. Social Justice, the very signature tune of our Constitution and being deeply embedded in our constitutional ethos, in a way is the arch of the Constitution which ensures rights of the common man to be interpreted in a meaningful way so that life can be lived with human dignity." 12. The said Apex Court's decision is an indication for the tenor in which, the labour legislations like the present enactment, is required to be interpreted. 13. The Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the Act No.46 of 1981 brings out why this enactment at all. The said Apex Court's decision is an indication for the tenor in which, the labour legislations like the present enactment, is required to be interpreted. 13. The Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the Act No.46 of 1981 brings out why this enactment at all. It runs as under:- "Many workers in industrial establishments are being kept under temporary rules and on that pretext are being denied of various statutory as well as non-statutory benefits which are given to permanent workers. Mainly, in many establishments non-permanent workers are given consolidated wages which are far below the occupational wages and do not carry the benefit of dearness allowance paid to permanent employees. Similarly they are denied various other benefits like payment of festival, cyclone and marriage advances, payment of ex-gratia over and above the statutory bonus, supply of uniforms and tea, preference for the dependants of the employees in the matter of employment, etc. In order to curb various unfair labour practices and following the decision at the 25th meeting of the State Labour Advisory Board the Government have decided to undertake a special legislation to confer permanent status to the workers in various industrial establishments who have put in a service for a period of four hundred and eighty days in a period of twenty-four calendar months in such industrial establishments." 14. The definition of "workman" given in Section 2(4) of the Act brings within its sweep any type of workman, whether skilled or unskilled, whether permanent or temporary including Badli workmen, who are employed in an "industrial establishment" (see Section 2(3)), which includes "establishments" as defined in Section 2(6) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947. Since as per the said Act, the Electricity Board is an establishment automatically it becomes an industrial establishment under Section 2(3) of Act No.46 of 1981 and thus, the Electricity Board is an "employer" under this Act (see Section 2(1)). Thus, the Board is governed by the provisions of the Act. 15. In fulfillment its objective, in its Section 3(1), the Act declares as under:- "Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force every workman who is in continuous service for a period of four hundred and eighty days in a period of twenty four calendar months in an industrial establishment shall be made permanent." 16. 15. In fulfillment its objective, in its Section 3(1), the Act declares as under:- "Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force every workman who is in continuous service for a period of four hundred and eighty days in a period of twenty four calendar months in an industrial establishment shall be made permanent." 16. To implement the provisions of the Act, Section 4 of the Act envisages appointment of Inspectors. Section 5 delineates the powers and duties of the Inspectors. Contraventions of the provisions of the Act by the employers will result in their prosecutions (see Section 6 of the Act). 17. In exercise of its power under Section 10 of the Act, for the effective implementation of the scheme under the Act, the Government framed Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Rules, 1981 (hereinafter called as "the Rules"). Rule 6 empowers the Inspectors appointed under the Act to visit the industrial establishments, check the registers. Rule 6(4) reads as under:- "6 (4). Any employee who finds his name not entered in the list referred to in sub-rule (2) or finds that the entries have not been made correctly or finds that though entries regarding his service have been made correctly but he has not attested the entries in the register of workmen in Form 1 may make a representation to the Inspector concerned. The Inspector after examining the representation or after making enquiries may issue suitable directions to the employer for the rectification of the register in Form [emphasis supplied by us] 18. The arguments of the respondents in effect is that the said authority, namely, Inspectors appointed under the Act are a paper-tigers, toothless officials except filing a criminal case against the employers, has no power to compel them to make the workers permanent. This obstacle has to be cleared first. It makes us to consider the position and power of the said Inspectors. 19. In TAMIL NADU MEDICAL SERVICES CORPORATION EMPLOYEES WELFARE UNION Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS [2000-III-LLJ (SUPPL.) 889], occasion arose for this Court to go into the scope of the Act and the powers of the Inspectors appointed under the Act. It is relevant to extract hereunder the following observations made in the said Judgment:- "17. 19. In TAMIL NADU MEDICAL SERVICES CORPORATION EMPLOYEES WELFARE UNION Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS [2000-III-LLJ (SUPPL.) 889], occasion arose for this Court to go into the scope of the Act and the powers of the Inspectors appointed under the Act. It is relevant to extract hereunder the following observations made in the said Judgment:- "17. Among the above mentioned decisions, it is useful to refer the recent Division Bench decision of this Court in Mamundiraj, N. v. BHEL, Trichy, 1999-I-LLJ-622 (Mad-DB). The issue before the Division Bench was with reference to conferment of permanent status to casual labourers working in Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Trichy who have completed 480 days of continuous service. Their Lordships after accepting the case pleaded by the workmen, directed the 2nd respondent therein to determine whether the appellants (workmen) had worked for 480 days in preceding 24 calendar months and whether the interrupted period of service, if any or cessation of work if any, brought about is an unfair labour practice. They further observed that in view of the observations made in the earlier part of their Judgment, if the answer is in affirmative, the worker would be entitled to the conferment of the status of permanent employee with effect from the date of termination of service with all other consequential reliefs flowing from such a declaration. The Bench has also directed the 2nd respondent therein to determine the above referred questions within 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of that Judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to both the parties. Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Act 46 of 1981 enables the Government to appoint Inspectors for the purpose of implementing the provisions of the Act. As a matter of fact, the Government have appointed Inspectors. The powers of Inspectors have been enumerated in Rule 3 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Rules, 1981. As per Rule 4, it is incumbent on the employer of an industrial establishment to furnish all the required information to the Inspector. As per Rule 6, every employer of an industrial establishment has to maintain a register of workmen in Form I and produce the same whenever it is required by the Inspector having jurisdiction over the industrial establishment. As per Rule 4, it is incumbent on the employer of an industrial establishment to furnish all the required information to the Inspector. As per Rule 6, every employer of an industrial establishment has to maintain a register of workmen in Form I and produce the same whenever it is required by the Inspector having jurisdiction over the industrial establishment. Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 6 envisages the employer to make a representation to the Inspector and the latter can examine the representation after making enquires and issue suitable directions to the employer for rectification of the register in Form I or issue orders conferring permanent status to the workman concerned. In the light of the powers conferred on the Inspector by the statute and in view of the factual information furnished by the petitioner Union, it would be appropriate for this Court to issue direction to the concerned Inspector to verify the registers of the second respondent Corporation with reference to the claim made by the petitioner Union and pass appropriate orders conferring permanent status to the eligible workmen." 20. In TATA TEA LTD. VELONIE ESTATE & OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARTY TO GOVT. & ORS. the said decision reported in 2000-III-LLJ (SUPPL.) 889 (supra) has been followed. 21. Exactly, as made before us, similar arguments were made before this Court in THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, VELLORE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CIRCLE, VELLORE Vs. THE LABOUR INSPECTOR, VELLORE AND OTHERS [2004 (3) LLN 598]. This Court went deep into the matter and held as under:- "34. ...... & ORS. the said decision reported in 2000-III-LLJ (SUPPL.) 889 (supra) has been followed. 21. Exactly, as made before us, similar arguments were made before this Court in THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, VELLORE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CIRCLE, VELLORE Vs. THE LABOUR INSPECTOR, VELLORE AND OTHERS [2004 (3) LLN 598]. This Court went deep into the matter and held as under:- "34. ...... The well known canon of construction is that no provision in a statute can be held to be redundant and therefore, when under Section 5 of the Act specific powers have been provided to the effect that the Inspector of Labour can enter at all reasonable times into any industrial establishments, make necessary examinations of the records and record necessary evidence of such persons as he may deem necessary for carrying out the purposes of the Act and when the said provisions read along with Rule 6(4) which specifically provides that such exercise of powers provided under Section 5 can be made while dealing with a representation and by passing a positive order conferring permanent status, it will have to be held that the Inspector of Labour would be fully competent to issue an order conferring permanent status to the workmen based on the evidence available before it based on the enquiry held by him, if it was brought out that such a benefit should necessarily be conferred on the concerned workmen. I can only say that to hold otherwise would only defeat the whole purpose of the Enactment, the object of which was that wherever workmen are being kept under temporary roles, thereby denied of various statutory as well as non-statutory benefits, which are extended to the permanent workers and wages are paid on consolidated basis far below the occupational wages without the benefit of Dearness Allowance, which is paid to the permanent employees, to defeat such deprivation and ensure that their real status is affirmed." 22. In THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, NAGAPATTINAM & OTHERS Vs. THE INSPECTOR OF LABOUR & OTHERS a Division Bench of this Court approved the said decision of the learned Single Judge reported in 2004 (3) LLN 598 (supra). 23. In K.S.B. PUMPS LTD. COIMBATORE Vs. In THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, NAGAPATTINAM & OTHERS Vs. THE INSPECTOR OF LABOUR & OTHERS a Division Bench of this Court approved the said decision of the learned Single Judge reported in 2004 (3) LLN 598 (supra). 23. In K.S.B. PUMPS LTD. COIMBATORE Vs. DEPUTY CHIEF INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES, COIMBATORE AND OTHERS [2002 (4) LLN 389], this Court held as under:- "Rule 6(4) of Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Rules, 1981, makes it clear that any employee, who finds his name not entered in the list referred to in sub-rule (2) or finds that the entries have not been made correctly, can make a representation to the Inspector concerned. The Inspector is authorised to examine the representation and issue suitable direction to the employer for the rectification of the register in Form 1 and also to issue directions for the issue of orders conferring permanent status to the workmen concerned. Even assuming that the Inspector is merely an administrative authority, rule 6(4) itself contemplates that he can make an enquiry and thereafter issue suitable direction to the employer. Since the Inspector can make enquiry, it does not prejudice anybody, if the Inspector makes such an enquiry in the presence of both the parties and calls upon the parties to produce material in respect of their respective contentions." 24. Recently, in MANAGEMENT OF HANIL TUBE INDIA PRIVATE LTD., REP. BY ASST. GENERAL MANAGER-FINANCE, SRIPERUMBEDUR, Vs. COMPETENT AUTHORITY & INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES, SRIPERUMBEDUR AND OTHERS [2012-III-LLJ 261 (MAD)], similar view has been taken by this Court. 25. Thus, a study of the objects and reasons, the vital provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder and a survey of the decisions on the point clearly shows that the competent authority, namely, the Inspectors appointed under the Act are not a paper-tigers. They have the duty and authority to pass orders enabling the eligible workers to have permanent status in the industrial establishment. 26. The respondents are correct in saying that the Inspectors cannot be equated to the level of a Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals as they alone have the power to adjudicate the industrial disputes and the Inspectors under the Act has got limited role to play, they cannot resolve an industrial dispute as between the management and workmen. 26. The respondents are correct in saying that the Inspectors cannot be equated to the level of a Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals as they alone have the power to adjudicate the industrial disputes and the Inspectors under the Act has got limited role to play, they cannot resolve an industrial dispute as between the management and workmen. They can only enquire into the claim and counter claim of the labour and management within the limited role assigned to them under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. But, they can issue directions and orders to implement the provisions of Act No.46 of 1981. 27. The stand of the respondents is that for regularisation of their services, the appellants have to raise a dispute and go before the Industrial Tribunal. 28. Section 3 of the Act contains a non-obstante clause. As per that notwithstanding anything contained in any other Act, the eligible workers can seek regularisation of their services under the Act and approach the Competent Authority appointed under the Act, namely, the Inspector. There is no bar also under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for them to raise a dispute seeking regularisation of their services. So, there is no bar either in Act No.46 of 1981 or in Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for approaching the authorities and the forums constituted under these Acts to seek regularisation of their services. So, it is optional. 29. Long back, similar arguments were made in SAFIRE THEATRE case, where the workers can have redressal of their grievance under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 and they can also approach the Labour Court constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Since the workers have already approached the Labour Court, this Court held that they having elected one remedy again they cannot come to the authorities under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947. 30. On appeal, (NIRCHILIYA AND OTHERS Vs. MANAGEMENT OF SAFIRE THEATRE, MADRAS AND ANOTHER (1991 (I) LLJ 111)), the Hon'ble Apex Court held otherwise and observed as under:- "2. 30. On appeal, (NIRCHILIYA AND OTHERS Vs. MANAGEMENT OF SAFIRE THEATRE, MADRAS AND ANOTHER (1991 (I) LLJ 111)), the Hon'ble Apex Court held otherwise and observed as under:- "2. We are of the view that once remedy could be worked out in either of the forums, when the proceeding before the Labour Curt was not continued, in the absence of any specific bar uncle either the Madras Act or the Industrial Dispute Act against the alternative forum being moved the jurisdiction of the authority under the Madras Act would not be barred. In the facts and circumstances appearing on the record, we are of the view that the High Court went wrong in holding that there was lack of jurisdiction in the competent authority under the Madras Act to entertain the dispute. ..." 31. Dealing with similar issue, namely, the power of the Inspector under Act No.46 of 1981 Vs. the adjudicatory power of the Labour Courts and the Industrial Tribunals under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, VELLORE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CIRCLE, VELLORE [2004 (3) LLN 598], this Court held as under:- "35. Therefore, I am unable to accept the submission made on behalf of the Board that the exercise of the power by the Inspector of Labour in conferring permanent status after holding necessary enquires contemplated under Section 5 read along with Rule 6 (4) should be construed as arrogating to himself the powers available to the other adjudicatory forums created under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It will have to be stated that while the exercise of powers vested with the Inspector under the provisions of the Act is summary in nature, the one under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act may be an elaborate one. Nevertheless the same does not mean that by exercising the power under the provisions of the Act the Inspector of Labour would be trespassing into the adjudication process contemplated under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. In this context, if the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in NIRCHILIYA AND OTHERS Vs. Nevertheless the same does not mean that by exercising the power under the provisions of the Act the Inspector of Labour would be trespassing into the adjudication process contemplated under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. In this context, if the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in NIRCHILIYA AND OTHERS Vs. MANAGEMENT OF SAFIRE THEATRE, MADRAS AND ANOTHER (1991 (I) LLJ 111) is applied, it can be safely held that where there is no prohibition under the provisions of either the Industrial Disputes Act or the Act, exercise of the power in the manner in which it can be done by the Inspector of Labour under the Act cannot be found fault with. It will have to be stated that such an exercise would be well within the statutory limitations provided under the Act. In fact, in the above referred to judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the question for consideration was whether the workmen who initially raised an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act and who did not pursue it till its logical end when chose to move the authority under the then Madras Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in the absence of any prohibition under either of the enactments, such a course adopted by the workmen cannot be faulted. Therefore, applying the said ratio to the case on hand, it can be safely held that the concerned workmen here were placed in a better footing when they chose to straightaway move the Inspector of Labour under the Act, inasmuch as according to the workmen, having regard to the facts prevailing as on date, they were entitled for the conferment of permanent status as provided under the Act. ..." 32. A Division Bench of this Court in THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, NAGAPATTINAM & OTHERS (supra) also upheld the above view of the learned Single Judge. 33. Thus, it is very clear that to seek the relief under Act No.46 of 1981 it is not mandatory that the workers should go to the Labour Court alone by raising an Industrial Dispute. 34. It has been contended by the respondents that the Inspector cannot compel the Management to implement his orders issued under Act No.46 of 1981. 35. This issue has been answered by this Court in THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, VELLORE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CIRCLE, VELLORE (supra), as under:- "34. ..... 34. It has been contended by the respondents that the Inspector cannot compel the Management to implement his orders issued under Act No.46 of 1981. 35. This issue has been answered by this Court in THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, VELLORE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CIRCLE, VELLORE (supra), as under:- "34. ..... Therefore, it can be safely held that by virtue of Section 5 read along with Rule 6(4), the Inspector of Labour can pass positive orders conferring permanent status to the workmen concerned after examining the representation made before him and after holding an enquiry. The Division Bench of this Court has also held so in the Judgment reported in 1985 (II) LLJ 376 (cited supra). In spite of all these, if it were to be held that irrespective of the said statutory stipulations the Inspector of Labour is not entitled to pass positive orders conferring permanent status, such powers vested with him under the provisions would only result in futility. I am afraid that the submission so made on behalf of the Board can be accepted. It is true that under Section 5 read with Rule 6(4) of the Act, the Inspector of Labour can also direct in the event of any defects in the maintenance of registers to rectify such defects and give appropriate directions to that effect. But, the same did not mean, that, that is the only power vested in the Inspector of Labour and nothing more......." 36. The Writ Court took the view that for not respecting the orders of the Inspectors appointed under the Act, the workers can complain to the Inspector to prosecute their erring employer and they cannot come to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to execute the orders of the Inspector. 37. In METAL POWDER CO. LTD., THIRUMANGALAM AND ANOTHER Vs. 37. In METAL POWDER CO. LTD., THIRUMANGALAM AND ANOTHER Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANOTHER [1985 II LLJ 376 (DB)], a Division Bench of this Court held that such orders of the Inspector is not a final order, as it has been passed within his limited jurisdiction, but, there is no provision for appeal has been provided in Act No.46 of 1981 or in any other enactment as against the orders passed by the Inspector and in such circumstances, the correctness of the orders of the Inspector can be canvassed both by the workmen and the employer before the Writ Court under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. 38. For non-implementation of the orders passed under the Act by the Inspector, no doubt there is provision for prosecuting the employer. But, that is not suffice for the employees, because they need security in their employment than securing conviction for their employer. There is no execution machinery provided in the Act to execute the orders passed by the Inspector. But, the orders passed by the Inspector of Labour by virtue of the provisions of a statute is a statutory order. The Electricity Board is an instrumentality of the State and is bound to perform the statutory duty imposed upon it under the Act. On it's failure to discharge it, the workmen can knock the doors of this Court for justice under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of Mandamus or any other directions or orders to perform its duty. 39. Thus, the various legal submissions made by the respondents are devoid of any substance and are untenable. 40. Now, we will go to the factual aspect. 41. Before the Inspector of Labour, Karur, the petitioners have filed petition seeking permanent status under Act No.46 of 1981. The Board filed counter raising the very same contentions, it had raised in this Court. The matter was enquired into by the Competent Authority and on 15.2.2010, the authorities passed orders directing the Board to regularise their services with effect from the date on which they have completed 480 days in 24 calendar months and also furnished details of the job rendered by them and their date of joining. 42. Before the Competent Authority, the appellants have filed their documents. 42. Before the Competent Authority, the appellants have filed their documents. It consisted of certificates issued by the Officers of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board to the effect that they have been employed by the Board. The Inspector of Labour verified those materials and held that the appellants are causal labourers employed by the Board. 43. The respondents continue to contend that the appellants are contract labourers under independent contractors. 44. In MANAGEMENT OF HANIL TUBE INDIA PRIVATE LTD., (supra), this Court with reference to an order passed by the Competent Authority under the Act, held as under:- "28. There can be no dispute with this proposition of law that High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction, cannot re-appraise evidence to come to a different conclusion or interfere with the findings recorded by the quasi judicial authority only on the ground that different view was possible. At the same time, it is also well settled that the Writ Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction can interfere with the findings recorded by the quasi judicial authorities if it is outcome of misreading of evidence and is perverse on the face of it." 45. On this aspect, this Court in TATA TEA LIMITED, VELONIE ESTATE (supra), observed as under:- "13.2. In the present case, it is not as if the employer did not have any obligation to provide necessary materials. In fact in some of the cases, the officers have exercised suo motu power and in some cases, on complaint, they inspected the records and made necessary endorsement. Even in cases where applications were filed by the contesting respondents, it contains details and the management did not seriously challenge those details except taking a legalistic stand and raised technical objections. If the employer wanted to resist the claims, they could have produced proper registers to prove their stand that the workmen have absented themselves from duty or that they had stayed away from work, thereby violating the terms of contract. The Inspector can take adverse inference about the conduct of the management. Ultimately, the authority constituted under the Act is entitled to take a view on the basis of the materials placed before him. The Inspector can take adverse inference about the conduct of the management. Ultimately, the authority constituted under the Act is entitled to take a view on the basis of the materials placed before him. Considering the narrow compass in which this Court can have a judicial review over such matters, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution will not interfere with the findings recorded by the Officer unless it is perverse. ...." 46. Thus, if the evidence adduced before the quasi judicial authority has been misread and the findings recorded is perverse even sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court can interfere. 47. In the case before us, the workers have presented their petition, furnished details of their employment, they have also produced the documents issued by the Officers of the Board evidencing their employment with the Board and the nature of jobs done by them. The Board has taken a consistent view that they were not employed by it and they were employed under an independent contractor and that there was no employee-employer relationship as between them and the Board. But, the Board did not produce any material to show that they were so employed under an independent contractor. Not even details of such contractor has been furnished. No material or document to contradict the documents produced by the appellants, which have been issued by the Board's Officials itself has been produced by the Board. 48. In this connection, it is relevant to note that in TAMIL NADU HANDICRAFTS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, REP. BY ITS SECRETARTY, MADRAS AND ANOTHER Vs. THE INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES, RANGE NO.II, MADURAI AND ANOTHER [ 2000 (1) MLJ 251 ], this Court held that when the Management has not produced any material before the Inspector appointed under Act No.46 of 1981, it is not open to it to raise objections that they were not employed by it. 49. Considering the materials produced, the Inspector of Labour, Karur, came to the conclusion that the appellants are not contract labourers, but casual labourers of the Board. Further, the Inspector recorded a finding that these appellants have completed 480 days within a period of 24 calendar months and also furnished their details in a tabular form appended to his order dated 15.2.2010. Thus, the findings of the Inspector of Labour, is not perverse and it is backed by evidence. 50. Further, the Inspector recorded a finding that these appellants have completed 480 days within a period of 24 calendar months and also furnished their details in a tabular form appended to his order dated 15.2.2010. Thus, the findings of the Inspector of Labour, is not perverse and it is backed by evidence. 50. It is also pertinent to note that the respondents have not challenged the said findings of the Inspector of Labour, Karur, till today by way of any independent proceedings or in a manner known to law. 51. It is very unfortunate that though the Inspector of Labour, Karur, has passed the orders as early as on 15.2.2010, till date, in spite of the request and representations of the appellants, no order has been passed by the respondents making them permanent employees in pursuance of the provisions contained in the Act except making untenable contentions throughout denying their statutory claim. 52. In the result, the Writ Appeal is allowed. The order of the Writ Court, dated 17.8.2012 is set aside. The respondents are directed to implement the order of the Inspector of Labour, Karur, passed in Na.Ka.No.392/2008, dated 15.2.2010 and issue orders appointing the appellants in permanent posts in the appropriate category/grade with all attendant benefits. It is made clear that the said exercise shall be completed by the respondents within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.