Judgment : The second round of litigation was forced against the poor writ petitioners, by the respondents, for filing these 4 writ petitions individually, by B.Sekar, M.Murugan, P.Bernardshaw and P.Rajakumar, seeking to challenge the impugned order passed by the 4th respondent, the Superintending Engineer, Purchase and Administration, Tamil Nadu Generation and Corporation Limited, Tuticorin Thermal Power Station, Tuticorin in Memo No. 2442/41/ADM-II/A1/2010 dated 24.02.2010 in so far as the order deems the petitioners as fresh appointment against the order of the competent authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment Status to Workmen) Act 1981 dated 02.01.2001 and the consequential order of the 4th respondent in proceedings No. Ku.No.1193/53/ Ne.Pe.3/U4/Ko. dated 26.03.2011, to quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and consequentially directing the 1st respondent, the Chief Engineer (Personnel), Tamil Nadu Generation and Corporation Limited to confer permanent status to the petitioners from the date of their joining in the service of the 4th respondent, entitling the service benefits of promotion, back wages, continuity of service, family pension benefits and all other concomitant service benefits eligible to the petitioners. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that all the four petitioners were employed as contract labourers in the service of the 4th respondent, during the year 1997-1998 and have rendered valid services for more than 480 days in two consecutive years, to be regularised permanently and for absorbing in the 4th respondent services. But, the respondents had failed to regularise the services of the petitioners, which compelled them to approach the competent authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment Status to Workmen) Act 1981, by an application dated 29.08.2000. The competent authority under the Act, after considering the merits of the case of all the four petitioners and the objections raised by the respondents, passed a detailed order on 02.01.2001, giving the benefit of Section 3 of the Act on the petitioners and holding that they are deemed to be in continuous service. Aggrieved by the order dated 02.01.2001, passed by the competent authority under the Act, the respondents filed W.P. No. 9729 of 2002 before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But, this Court agreeing with the reasons given by the competent authority granting permanent status to all the petitioners, dismissed the Writ Petition on 20.08.2003. Aggrieved by the order dated 02.01.2001, passed by the competent authority under the Act, the respondents filed W.P. No. 9729 of 2002 before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But, this Court agreeing with the reasons given by the competent authority granting permanent status to all the petitioners, dismissed the Writ Petition on 20.08.2003. Again aggrieved by the same, the respondents filed W.A. No. 311 of 2004 unsuccessfully and this Court once again by giving sound and detailed reasons, dismissed the Writ Appeal No.311 of 2004 on 17.11.2008, directing the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board to implement the order passed by the Inspector of Factories, by absorbing each of the contract labourers in question, in letter and spirit of the order, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. 3. But, the grievance of the petitioners, as explained by the learned counsel shows that, even after the order passed by the competent authority under the Act, that was repeatedly questioned and a finality has been reached in the Writ Appeal No.311 of 2004 on 17.11.2008, still, the respondents have not come forward to comply with the order, though there is a specific order by the Hon'ble Division Bench in W. A. No.311/2004 to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, to implement the order dated 02.01.2001, in letter and spirit, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Now, adding fuel to fire, finally the impugned order has been passed, by issuing fresh appointment only from 24.02.2010, completely over riding the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench on 17.11.2008. Adding further, learned counsel submitted that, when the order passed by the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, Tirunelveli dated 02.01.2001 was directed to be implemented by this Court in letter and spirit, the respondents have willfully neglected their legal duty, by their order dated 24.02.2010 and 26.03.2011, refusing to accord permanent status by including the previous services, by the order of the competent authority. On this basis prayed for setting aside the impugned order. 4. Separate counter affidavits have been filed in all the matters. On this basis prayed for setting aside the impugned order. 4. Separate counter affidavits have been filed in all the matters. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the writ petitions are totally misconceived, since the petitioners have admitted in the original claim petition filed before the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, Tirunelveli that they were seeking reinstatement to work but the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, has ordered as per the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act 1981, to appoint them as permanent workers in Tuticorin Thermal Power Station. Moreover, a settlement was reached between the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and the Unions that, for absorption, the contract labourers working in the four thermal power stations namely, Ennore Thermal Power Station, Mettur Thermal Power Station, North Chennai Thermal Power Station and Tuticorin Thermal Power Station, would be considered on the basis of seniority and need basis, subject to the condition that there is no departmental proceedings pending. Thereafter, the Board has issued a Memo No.00083/IR 1(1)/98-1 dated 05.01.1998 stating that no additional contract labourers should be engaged other than those who had already been engaged. Thereafter, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, implemented the G.O. Ms. No. 950 dated 08.08.1990 issued by the Government, namely, Labour and Employment Department, regarding abolition/ prohibition of contract labour system in certain process of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board including the Thermal Power Stations, with effect from 01.05.1999, by terminating the contract system from 30.04.1999. By following the above implementation, the cut off date for adoption had been fixed as 30.04.1999 and the contract labourers who were on the rolls of the respective contractors and who have completed continuous service of 480 days within a period of 24 calender months as on 30.04.1999 alone, were eligible for absorption. Accordingly, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board issued a Board Proceedings in (FB) No.17 (SB) dated 28.04.1999 stating that the contract labourers identified as on 05.01.1998 and not engaged in the four Thermal Power Stations including the Tuticorin Thermal Power Station, shall be absorbed based on the seniority in respective stations to the extent of regular sanction and supernumerary posts mentioned in Board proceedings for each Thermal Stations. 5. On this basis, 30.04.1999 was taken as a cut-off date for absorption,as per Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of permanent status to workmen) Act, 1981. 5. On this basis, 30.04.1999 was taken as a cut-off date for absorption,as per Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of permanent status to workmen) Act, 1981. Since the petitioners had not completed 480 days in the 24 calender months as on 30.04.1999, the committee has not selected them for permanent absorption and their services were terminated on 27.10.1999. As a result, the petitioners approached the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, Tirunelveli for permanent absorption, as per Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of permanent status to workmen) Act, 1981. Although the claim was allowed by order dated 02.01.2001, the respondents filed W.P. No. 9729 of 2002, challenging the correctness of the order, but, this Court dismissed the same. Subsequently, Writ Appeal No. 311 of 2004 was filed by the respondents, which was also dismissed on 17.11.2008. Thereafter, all the petitioners were absorbed as permanent workers, as per the Award passed by the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, Tirunelveli and there was no deviation, as complained by the petitioners. Therefore, the prayer in the writ petitions are misconceived and hence the same are liable to be dismissed, he pleaded. 6. It is further stated that, when they have approached the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, Tirunelveli, under section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of permanent status to workmen) Act, 1981 only for reinstatement into Board's service, they are not entitled to get family pension benefits and GPF recovery as these things have not been properly mentioned by the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories in the Award dated 02.01.2001. Above all, when similarly placed persons like M. Subramanian, one of the contract labourers, has been appointed as Helper with effect from the date of appointment, as per the Award passed by the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, the same has also been confirmed by the Board. But, he claimed, for payment of backwages from 03.11.1999 to 30.11.2005, WA.M.P. No. 1939 of 2006 in W.A. No.4088 of 2004 was filed seeking a direction to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board to pay the backwages to him. But, the same was dismissed on the ground that the relief sought for by the said Subramanian was not within the scope of writ petition and that goes to show that all the four petitioners are also not entitled for backwages and continuity of service, as per the impugned order. But, the same was dismissed on the ground that the relief sought for by the said Subramanian was not within the scope of writ petition and that goes to show that all the four petitioners are also not entitled for backwages and continuity of service, as per the impugned order. Concluding her arguments, it is stated that the petitioners had prayed for only appointment, without seeking for any backwages and continuity of service and the Award that has been passed by the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, Tirunelveli also does not mention about grant of any benefit except conferring permanent status. Therefore, it is not open to the petitioners to challenge the impugned order, as it is rightly said that the petitioners are entitled to get reinstatement and all of them have also been reinstated from 24.02.2010 and the consequent order dated 26.03.2011 refusing to accord permanent status by including the past service also, cannot be found fault with. 7. This Court is not impressed by neither the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents nor with the reasons given by the respondents in the impugned order. The only core grievance of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, as projected by the learned counsel shows that when the petitioners themselves had admitted in their original claim petitions filed before the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, Tirunelveli asking only reinstatement of work into the Board's services, as per the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981, the authority under the Act, in terms of Section 3, directed to confer the petitioners who have worked for 480 days in 24 calender months and further directed the Chief Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Tuticorin to appoint the petitioners as permanent workers in Tuticorin Thermal Power Station. Thereafter, the said order was challenged in W.P. No. 9729 of 2002 and W.A. No. 311 of 2004. However, after dismissal of the Writ Appeal, the petitioners were appointed by order dated 24.02.2010 with effect from the date of joining. Therefore, there is no violation on it. 8. Secondly, it is stated that they are not entitled to any backwages and continuity of service. This Court finds no justification in this stand. However, after dismissal of the Writ Appeal, the petitioners were appointed by order dated 24.02.2010 with effect from the date of joining. Therefore, there is no violation on it. 8. Secondly, it is stated that they are not entitled to any backwages and continuity of service. This Court finds no justification in this stand. The reason is, when all the four petitioners approached the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, Tirunelveli, the concerned authority under Section 3 of the Act, requesting for an order conferring permanent status to them by the respondent having worked for 480 days as required by the Act, after detailed enquiry conducted on the claim, it was found that all the petitioners have been in continuous employment for 480 days in 24 calender months in the office of the Chief Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Tuticorin. However, when a question arose whether the cut off date 30.04.1999 has to be fixed for absorption or not, the authority under the Act, by following Sections 3(1) & (2) of the Act and taking note of the legal position that if a workman is found to be in a continuous service for a period of 480 days in a period of 24 calender months in an industrial establishment, he shall be made permanent. Against this order, when W.P. No.9729 of 202 was filed, this Court dismissed the Writ Petition, directing the Chief Engineer, Tuticorin Thermal Power Station, Tamil nadu Electricity Board to absorb them as permanent workers in Tuticorin Thermal Power Station, Tuticorin. Again this doubt has been dis-spelled by the order of Hon'ble Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.311 dated 17.11.2008. It was further held that as the order of the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories directing the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board to absorb each of the contract labourer in question was passed as early as on 02.01.2001 and so far the said order could not be implemented due to the pendency of the Writ Petition and Writ Appeal, direction was given to the Board to implement the said order in letter and spirit within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. When the Division Bench passed an order on 17.11.2008 to absorb the petitioners from 02.01.2001, in my view, the order in question to absorb them only from 24.02.2010 is not in accordance with the direction issued by the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, Tirunelveli, hence they should be appointed from 02.01.2001 with continuity of service. 9. Besides, when the order conferring permanent status upon the petitioners were passed on 02.01.2001, only due to the conduct of the first respondent who protracted the litigation upto 2010 by filing Writ Petition and Writ Appeal, the petitioners were deprived of continuous employment from 2001 till 24.02.2010 for no fault on their part, therefore, the non-employment of the petitioners from the date of the order passed by the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, Tirunelveli cannot be attributed against the petitioners. Hence, the order of appointment should take effect from 02.01.2001. If this Court accepts the argument made by the respondents that after the dismissal of the Writ Appeal, the petitioners were to be absorbed only from 24.02.2010, hence, they are not entitled to continuity of service, this will amount to modification of the order dated 02.01.2001 passed by the Authority under the Act. Moreover, since a similarly placed person Thiru Subramaniam, who is also a contract labourer has been denied the same benefit, the sanctity of the order passed by the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, Tirunelveli conferring permanent status to the petitioners from 02.01.2001, as confirmed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.9729 of 2002, followed by the order in Writ Appeal No.311 of 2004 dated 17.11.2008 would be not only diluted but would also become meaningless. Nodoubt, because of the pendency of the Writ Petition and the Writ Appeal, the respondents have successfully prevented the petitioners from working. However, that successful attempt, protracting the benefit granted under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981, cannot be deprived of. 10. Above all, this Court is also aware of the question as to, how the petitioners who had not worked from 02.01.2001 till they are absorbed on 24.02.2010 to be paid with the backwages and continuity of service. 10. Above all, this Court is also aware of the question as to, how the petitioners who had not worked from 02.01.2001 till they are absorbed on 24.02.2010 to be paid with the backwages and continuity of service. Looking into the causes for their non-employment and continuity of service, the respondents only should be thankful for non-absorption of the petitioners, inspite of several orders passed by the Authority under the Act and this Court, therefore, continuity of service from 02.01.2001 cannot be denied. Secondly, while turning to the question of backwages, the respondent department is the only prime reason for not implementing the order of this Court dated 02.01.2001, for which the petitioners cannot be denied with the backwages. However, taking into account the peculiar circumstances of the case, this Court hereby directs the respondents to grant continuity of service to the petitioners and other benefits, as per the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench, on 17.11.2008 in W.A. No.311 of 2004, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. Inspite of the specific and categorical direction given by the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A. No.311/2004 dated 17.11.2008 to implement the order dated 02.01.2001, the impugned order has been passed appointing the petitioners only from 24.02.2010 instead of 02.01.2001, flouting the order of the Division Bench, which compelled the petitioners to approach this court. This Court is also of the view that the proceedings initiated in W.P. No.9729 of 2002 and W.A. No.311 of 2004 against the order passed by the authority under the Act have been the reason for delay, hence the said period shall be treated as a period on duty for all purposes. Therefore, this Court is inclined to impose an exemplary cost of Rs.25,000/- payable to all the petitioners and the amount should be recovered only from the salary of the officer who have passed the order. 12. In view of the above, the Writ Petition Nos.10054 to 10057 of 2011 stands allowed. No order as to costs.