Judgment :- This Writ Petition is filed seeking Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to regularise the petitioner's services from the date on which the petitioner completed 480 days of service and further directing the respondents to pay the petitioner the arrears of difference in wages and all other consequential attendant benefits as per law and by implementing the order of the Inspector of Labour, Karur in Na.Ka.No. 392/2008 dated 15.02.2010 passed under Section 5 r/w. Section 6(4) of Tamil nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to workmen) Act, 1981. 2. The petitioner was appointed as casual employee with effect from 01.11.1997 to undertake various works within the Karur and Kulithalai Electricity Distribution Circle, within the control of Junior Engineer (Operation and Maintenance / North/ TNEB Kulithalai and Assistant Engineer (Operation and Maintenance) Kulithalai Section. He had completed 480 days of service within 24 Calendar months. He continued to work as casual labourer in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board which is now known as Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO), without any break. The petitioner's service was not regularised. Hence, the petitioner and 47 employees joined together filed a petition under Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status of Workmen) Act, 1981 to regularize their service from the date on which they have completed 480 days of service in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, which is now known as TANGEDCO. 3. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board contended before the first respondent that there is a ban on recruitment of daily wage employees from 1973. The petitioner and others were not engaged as daily wage labourer by Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. They are contract labourers and wages were paid by the contractors. The fourth respondent considered all the materials produced before him and by order dated 15.02.2010 directed regularization of petitioner and 33 other employees. The fourth respondent dismissed the petition in so far as 13 employees, on the ground that they have not completed 480 days in 24 Calendar Months. 4. The respondents 1 to 3 did not regularize the service of the petitioner, in spite of repeated demands. The petitioner has given the representation on 03.12.2012 to implement the order dated 15.02.2010 to the respondents. The respondents 1 to 3 did not comply with the order. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition for the relief stated supra. 5. The petitioner has given the representation on 03.12.2012 to implement the order dated 15.02.2010 to the respondents. The respondents 1 to 3 did not comply with the order. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition for the relief stated supra. 5. Though the Writ Petition is of the year 2012, the respondents not filed any counter affidavit. When the matter was taken up for hearing, they have filed written submissions. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2013-II-LLJ-562 (Mad) (R. Ashok and others Vs. Chairman, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited) 7. In the said Judgment, the Division Bench of this Court after considering various judgments has held that the fourth respondent has statutory power to adjudicate the claim of the workers enabling eligible workers to have permanent status. In view of said conclusion, the Division Bench Division Bench judgment, para 52 held as follows:- “52. In the result the writ appeal is allowed. The order of the Writ Court, dated 17.08.2012 is set aside. The respondents are directed to implement the order of the Inspector of Labour, Karur, passed in Na.Ka.No.392 of 2008, dated 15.02.2010 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.” 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on order dated 25.08.2014 made in W.P(MD).No.3937 of 2013. In the said writ petition, the respondents challenged the very same impugned order dated 15.02.2010, based on which the petitioner is seeking regularization. This Court by order dated 25.08.2014 relying on the judgments of Division Bench referred to above dismissed the writ petition. 9. In view of the dismissal of the W.P(MD).No.3937 of 2013 and the Division Bench Judgment of this Court referred to above, the petitioner is entitled to relief sought for in the writ petition. 10. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. 9. In view of the dismissal of the W.P(MD).No.3937 of 2013 and the Division Bench Judgment of this Court referred to above, the petitioner is entitled to relief sought for in the writ petition. 10. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. The respondents 1 to 3 are directed to pass orders regularize the service of the petitioners as per the orders of fourth respondent, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.