Judgment :- 1. Since common issues are involved in these writ petitions, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to implement the order dated 28.12.2011 of the third respondent, Inspector of Labour, Dindigul, the Appropriate Authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 (Tamil Nadu Act 46 of 1981) [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"] passed in C.P.S.Nos.1/09, 2/09, 4/09, 5/09, 6/09, 8/09, 9/09, 12/09, 13/09, 14/09, 15/09 and 16/09 respectively and to give status of permanent employee to the petitioners in W.P.(MD) Nos.16433 to 16438 of 2012 from 24.07.1974 and the petitioners in W.P.(MD) Nos.16439 to 16444 of 2012 from 01.09.1984 respectively with all benefits. 3. The petitioners were appointed as Sanitary Workers/Scavengers in the second respondent Municipality. The petitioners made various representations to the second respondent to regularise their services. The second respondent did not pass any order to make them as permanent employees. Therefore, the petitioners filed C.P.S.Nos.1/09, 2/09, 4/09, 5/09, 6/09, 8/09, 9/09, 12/09, 13/09, 14/09, 15/09 and 16/09 before the third respondent herein to make them as permanent employees in the second respondent Municipality. The third respondent, by an order, dated 28.12.2011, directing the second respondent to confer permanent status to the petitioners. The petitioners sent representations, dated 18.01.2012 to the second respondent, enclosing a copy of the order of the third respondent and requested to implement the order of the third respondent, dated 28.12.2011. The second respondent did not pass any order on the same. Hence, the petitioners have filed the present writ petitions for the relief stated supra. 4. The second respondent filed counter affidavit, stating that the petitioners were appointed as substitute employees on temporary basis based on the Government Order. They were working on leave vacancy of permanent employees. However, they have filed petitions before the third respondent herein under Section 3 of the Act, to make them as permanent employees. 4. The second respondent filed counter affidavit, stating that the petitioners were appointed as substitute employees on temporary basis based on the Government Order. They were working on leave vacancy of permanent employees. However, they have filed petitions before the third respondent herein under Section 3 of the Act, to make them as permanent employees. After receiving the order passed by the third respondent, the second respondent sent a proposal in Na.Ka.No.11813/2012/H2, dated 18.05.2012 to the State Government, through the Regional Director of Municipal Administration, Madurai, to regularise the petitioners' services and to accommodate them in some other nearby Municipalities, since the expenses in the head of salary and pension of the second respondent exceeded 49% out of total Revenue of the Municipality. The State Government, by G.O.(Ms)No.209, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 16.04.2013, permitted the Commissioner of concerned Municipalities to accommodate the petitioners herein, if there is any vacancy available in the nearby Municipalities. Therefore, the second respondent requested the Regional Director of Municipal Administration, Madurai, vide letter in Na.Ka.No.11813/2012/H2, dated 02.05.2013, to accommodate the petitioners herein in the nearby Municipalities. The Regional Director of Municipal Administration, Madurai, vide letter in Na.Ka.No.2734/2013/A3, dated 19.06.2013, rejected the request of the second respondent, stating that there is no possibility to accommodate the petitioners in other Municipalities, since there is no need for appointing the Sanitary Workers and directed the second respondent to send a fresh proposal to the Government, to permit the second respondent to accommodate the petitioners herein in the second respondent Municipality. Accordingly, the second respondent has sent a proposal in Na.Ka.No.11813/2003/H2, dated 17.07.2013, to the State Government through the Regional Director of Municipal Administration, Madurai, to permit the second respondent to accommodate the petitioners herein and the same is pending before the State Government for consideration. 5. I have perused the materials available on record and heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and considered the arguments put forth by them. 6. From the records, it is seen that the third respondent, by an order dated 28.12.2011, directed the second respondent to make the petitioners as permanent employees in the second respondent Municipality. Against the said order, the second respondent Municipality has not filed any appeal. Therefore, the said order has become final. 7. 6. From the records, it is seen that the third respondent, by an order dated 28.12.2011, directed the second respondent to make the petitioners as permanent employees in the second respondent Municipality. Against the said order, the second respondent Municipality has not filed any appeal. Therefore, the said order has become final. 7. From the counter affidavit and records, it is seen that the second respondent has sent a proposal to the Government on 17.07.2013, to permit second respondent to accommodate the petitioners herein in the second respondent Municipality. Since the second respondent has not filed any appeal against the order of the third respondent, the second respondent is bound to grant permanency to the petitioners as per orders of the third respondent. 8. Therefore, the writ petitions are allowed, directing the second respondent to implement the order passed by the third respondent, dated 28.12.2011, in C.P.S.Nos.1/09, 2/09, 4/09, 5/09, 6/09, 8/09, 9/09, 12/09, 13/09, 14/09, 15/09 and 16/09, as expeditiously as possible, in any event, not later than twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.