JUDGMENT/ORDER : C.V.Karthikeyan, J.-W.P.No.17133 of 2001 had been filed by the Tamil Nadu Medical Services Corporation Limited, represented by its Managing Director (TNMSC Management) against the Tamil Nadu Medical Services Corporation Employees Welfare Union (TNMSC Union) and the Inspector of Labour, Circle III, Chennai, questioning the order of the Inspector of Labour, dated 31.03.2001, by which order, after enquiry and on appreciation of evidence, both oral and documentary adduced by TNMSC Management and TNMSC Union, the claim of 53 workmen to be conferred with permanent status as workmen under TNMSC Management, was upheld. It must also be mentioned that by the same order, the Inspector of Labour had rejected a similar claim made by 42 other workmen. 2. W.P.No.15241 of 2009 had been filed by 22 workmen out of the 53 workmen, who had been conferred with permanent status, by the order of the Inspector of Labour, dated 31.03.2001, referred supra, in the nature of Mandamus to direct the TNMSC Management, to give them employment as per representations made by them. 3. W.M.P.No.30971 of 2017 in W.P.No.17133 of 2001 had been filed by one workman, namely, S.Annadurai, who had also been conferred with permanent status by order of the Inspector of Labour, dated 31.03.2001, referred supra, to implead himself as a respondent in W.P.No.17133 of 2001. 4. The entire litigation between the TNMSC Management and TNMSC Union has been a long drawn affair from the year 1998 onwards. Unfortunately, though at successive intervals and in successive writ petitions, orders and directions have been issued by this Court, both the parties have been meandering in circles going nowhere and after nearly more than 20 years of litigation they are still at the starting block. 5. The Tamil Nadu Medical Services Corporation Limited (TNMSC Management) was incorporated as a Company under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 on 01.07.1994. 5. The Tamil Nadu Medical Services Corporation Limited (TNMSC Management) was incorporated as a Company under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 on 01.07.1994. The main object are, (i) to buy or otherwise acquire all kinds and varieties of generic and patent medicines, drugs, etc., (ii) to sell or supply them to various hospitals and other health centres; (iii) to purchase, distribute, assemble, install, maintain all types of capital equipments and instruments required in hospitals; (iv) to undertake designing and construction of hospitals and or other buildings for Government, or for any other person including local authorities, corporation, trusts, companies, firms and individuals; (v) to establish modern warehouses and engineering workshops to manufacture, assemble, repair or otherwise maintain various medical equipments, surgical instruments, diagnostic equipments etc., and, (vi) to establish research and development centres and institutes for medical and para-medical personnel for imparting training in various Techno-Managerial fields. 6. The company is under the control of Health Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu. The TNMSC Management in the year of 1998 had a turnover of Rs.80 crores when the first writ petition was agitated before this Court. It was supplying medicines and surgical instruments to all Primary Health Centres and Medical Institutions in the State of Tamil Nadu. It also had warehouses in Chennai and also in every District Headquarters for storing of medicines and drugs. 7. In G.O (Ms) No.383 Health and Family Welfare (H2) Department, dated 18.11.2008, which had been issued to ratify the action of the Managing Director of TNMSC for creating 379 posts in 26 categories, the activities of TNMSC Management have been described as follows:- "The activities of the Tamil Nadu Medical Services Corporation Limited have increased manifold over a period of time from the procurement, storage and the distribution of drugs, medicines, surgical and sutures to the Government Hospitals / Institutions, to the maintenance of medical and non medical equipments in all the Hospitals in the State, maintenance of pay wards, maintenance of CT Scan / MRI centers, procurement of drugs and medicines to the north eastern States under NRHM and also the procurement and distribution of drugs, medicines and equipments to the other projects like NABARD, tsunami, TANSAC and the Department like Veterinary and Fisheries." 8. It is also evident from a perusal of records that at the time of incorporation, there was no standing orders issued governing the working condition of the workmen who were engaged as casual labourers continuously. There was no service law governing the workmen. They were paid salaries for the number of days worked, at the end of the month. The records reveal that many of them were Graduates, Post-Graduates and Technical persons and they come to office and report to duty at 9.30 a.m and leave office in the late evening. Since the object of TNMSC Management was to render medical service, the workmen also worked on Sundays several times. 9. The workmen claimed that they had worked for more than 480 days in a period of 24 calendar months and further claimed that TNMSC Management was an Industrial Establishment as defined under Section 2 of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 (hereinafter Tamil Nadu Act, 36 of 1947) and consequently, claimed that they must be conferred permanent status in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 (hereinafter Tamil Nadu Act, 46 of 1981). 10. In this connection, they had submitted a representation on 20.04.1997 to TNMSC Management. They had also given another representation to the Health Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, on 13.01.1998. They had given a further representation in May 1998 to TNMSC Management. They also gave a representation on 10.06.1998 to the then Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, seeking regularization of services. 11. Tnmsc Union then filed W.P.No.15236 of 1998 for issuance of writ of Mandamus directing the TNMSC Management to regularise the services of the Members from the date of their joining into services and to pay backwages and other attendant benefits. During the pendency of W.P.No.15236 of 1998, TNMSC Union claimed that TNMSC Management was not permitting the workmen to work on Saturdays. Consequently, TNMSC Union filed W.P.No.17147 of 1998 for a direction against TNMSC Management to give employment to the Members of TNMSC Union also on Saturdays and also to pay backwages for the previous Saturdays and other attendant benefits. 12. Both the writ petitions came up for consideration before a learned Single Judge of this Court, P.Sathasivam,J., (as his Lordship then was). 12. Both the writ petitions came up for consideration before a learned Single Judge of this Court, P.Sathasivam,J., (as his Lordship then was). It was hotly contested with both sides engaging reputed Senior Advocates (Thiru.K.Chandru, subsequently Justice K.Chandru for TNMSC Union and Thiru.R.Krishnamoorthy, Former Advocate General for TNMSC Management). The Court passed a common order in both the writ petitions on 21.07.2000 which had been The Tamil Nadu Medical Services Corporation Employees Welfare Union, represented by its President, Miss C.Sumathi Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and another, (2000) 3 MadLJ 201. By a very detailed judgment, the learned Judge, held as follows:- "13. ........I have already stated that the Second respondent Corporation is a company registered under the Companies Act and wholly owned by the Government of Tamil Nadu. The perusal of the objects and nature of the work from the Articles of Association would show that it is a commercial agency and it comes within the definition of "commercial establishment" under Sec.2 (3) of the Tamil Nadu Act 36 of 1947; accordingly I hold that the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act. 1981 (Act 46 of 1981) is applicable to the second respondent Corporation." (Emphasis supplied) 13. After holding so, the learned Single Judge then considered the other aspect namely, whether the Members of TNMSC Union ought to be regularized and made permanent in terms of Tamil Nadu Act 46 of 1981. The learned Judge found as a fact that disputes have been raised by TNMSC Management with respect to the correctness or otherwise of the list of workmen furnished by TNMSC Union. Another specific stand taken by TNMSC Management was that, several workers were actually not working and there has been a drastic reduction in the work force and that TNMSC Management was not in a position to absorb the Members of TNMSC Union. After giving deep consideration to the rival contentions and also after referring to several precedents wherein, similar issues have been raised in other establishments, the learned Single Judge finally referred to a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Mamundiraj.N and others V. BHEL, Trichy and another, (1999) 1 LLJ 622 , which was with respect to conferment of permanent status to casual labourers working in Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited, Trichy, who had completed 480 days of continuous service. The learned Single Judge finally observed that the Inspector of Labour appointed under Tamil Nadu Act 36 of 1947, has to determine, after affording an opportunity of being heard to both the parties, the issue whether the workmen would be entitled to conferment of the status of permanent employee. The learned Single Judge finally held as follows: "17. .......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 establishments 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 No. 1 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 enquiries and issue suitable directions to the employer for rectification of the register in Form No. 1 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. 18. With regard to the claim made by the very same union in WP. No. 17147 of 1998 regarding providing employment on Saturdays to the members of the petitioner-union and to back-wages for the previous four Saturdays, I am of the view that the same may also be considered by the Inspector while conducting enquiry with regard to permanent status of the members of the petitioner-union. (Emphasis supplied) 14. The learned Single Judge finally summarized the findings and concluded as follows: "19.Under these circumstances, I pass the following orders: 1. (Emphasis supplied) 14. The learned Single Judge finally summarized the findings and concluded as follows: "19.Under these circumstances, I pass the following orders: 1. The Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 (Tamil Nadu Act 46 of 1981) is applicable to the second respondent Corporation; 2. The 'Inspector' having jurisdiction over the second respondent is directed to inspect and verify the records of the second respondent Corporation and pass appropriate orders under Sec.3 of the said Act with regard to the claim made by the members of the petitioner Union; 3. The 'Inspector' is also directed to consider the claim made by the petitioner Union regarding employment on Saturdays to the members of the petitioner Union; 4. The 'Inspector' is further directed to determine the above referred questions within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after affording an opportunity of being heard to both parties; and 5. Till an order is passed by the 'Inspector' as stated above, status quo as on date shall be maintained by both parties. Writ petitions are allowed to the extent mentioned above. No costs. All the miscellaneous petitions are closed." (Emphasis supplied). 15. Challenging the said common order passed in the above two writ petitions, TNMSC Management filed W.A.No.1430 of 2000 and W.A.No.1431 of 2000. 16. Simultaneously, TNMSC Union also approached the Inspector of Labour, appointed under Tamil Nadu Act 46 of 1981, seeking enquiry with respect to either conferment or otherwise of permanent status in accordance with the directions issued in W.P.Nos.15236 of 1998 and 17147 of 1998. This petition was taken on file by proceedings of the Inspector of Labour, Circle III, Chennai in P.M.No.E/4000/2000. 17. In the writ appeals, TNMSC Management filed CMP.Nos.12727 of 2000 in W.A.No.1430 of 1998 and C.M.P.No.12728 of 2000 in W.A.No.1431 of 2000, seeking stay of the operation of the common order dated 21.07.2000 in W.P.Nos.15236 of 1998 and 17147 of 1998, respectively. An interim stay was initially granted. The TNMSC Union then filed CMP.Nos.14730 of 2000 and 14731 of 2000 in both the writ appeals to vacate the order of interim stay granted in the writ appeals. An interim stay was initially granted. The TNMSC Union then filed CMP.Nos.14730 of 2000 and 14731 of 2000 in both the writ appeals to vacate the order of interim stay granted in the writ appeals. On 13.10.2000 the First Bench of this Court (N.K.Jani,C.J., and K.Ravi Raja Pandian, J., passed the following order:- "Mr.K.Chandru, learned Senior Counsel, submits that as per the direction of the learned Single Judge, the matter has to be decided by the Inspector of Labour, Cirle III, who has been authorised as per the Act for the purpose and the matter is fixed on 19.10.2000, and on account of the interim stay granted by this Court on 07.09.2000, there will be further delay. 2. To this, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Single Judge while directing the Inspector to decide the referred question, also observed to maintain status quo, meaning thereby the workers will continue in service as per the interim order, without any basis, and therefore, the stay order is to be continued. However, in deciding the controversy by the Inspector, the stay order dated 07.09.2000 will not come in his way. 3. On consideration, we find that the workers service cannot be continued. However, we direct that the interim stay granted by this Court on 07.09.2000 will not debar the Inspector of Labour to decide the issue, without prejudice to any observation of this Court, independently, in accordance with law. It is expected that the issue will be decided within three months from the date of receipt of this order. In any view of the matter, the interim order, to this extent, is made absolute. The vacate stay petition in C.M.P.Nos.14730 and 14731 of 2000 are dismissed. C.M.P.Nos.12727 and 12728 of 2000 disposed of accordingly." (Emphasis supplied). 18. After the pronouncement of the above order, W.A.Nos.1430 of 2000 and 1431 of 2000 were kept pending in this Court. 19. The Inspector of Labour, Circle III, Chennai, continued with his enquiry in P.M.No.E/4000/2000, under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 46 of 1981. A final order was passed on 31.03.2001. A perusal of the same reveals that both sides had been represented and both contested and disputed every claim raised by either side. TNMSC Management raised a preliminary objection regarding the application of Tamil Nadu Act 46 of 1981. A final order was passed on 31.03.2001. A perusal of the same reveals that both sides had been represented and both contested and disputed every claim raised by either side. TNMSC Management raised a preliminary objection regarding the application of Tamil Nadu Act 46 of 1981. They also raised an objection, whether the authorized officer (Inspector of Labour) had the authority to try the issues raised. 20. The Division Bench had directed the Inspector of Labour to decide the second issue namely, whether the Members of the Petitioner Union ought to be regularized and made permanent in terms of Tamil Nadu Act 46 of 1981. The Division Bench in its interim orders have very clearly stated that the workers would continue to work only as per the interim order, without any basis and that the interim stay was with respect to the regularization and it was clarified that the Inspector of Labour is not debarred from deciding the issue. 21. The objection of TNMSC Management before the Inspector of Labour regarding application of Tamil Nadu Act 46 of 1981 and its authority to examine the issue was therefore made more to prolong the proceedings. The primary issue before the Inspector of Labour was whether the named workmen could be conferred with permanent status or not. In the teeth of the specific finding in W.P.Nos.15236 of 1998 and 17147 of 1998, that Tamil Nadu Act 46 of 1981 is applicable to TNMSC Management, the very same issue was again raised before the Inspector of Labour. The Inspector of Labour framed the following three issues for consideration: "(a) Whether the act pertaining to Conferment of permanent status of workmen could be made applicable to the respondent Establishment? (b) Whether the authorised officer under the aforesaid act being the Labour Inspector has got the authority to try this case? (c) If, the respondent's Management is covered by the Jurisdiction of the aforesaid Act what is the nature of relief that could be awarded to the petitioners?" (Emphasis supplied). 22. The Inspector of Labour also afforded more than ample opportunity to both TNMSC Management and TNMSC Union to adduce evidence in support of their respective stands. (c) If, the respondent's Management is covered by the Jurisdiction of the aforesaid Act what is the nature of relief that could be awarded to the petitioners?" (Emphasis supplied). 22. The Inspector of Labour also afforded more than ample opportunity to both TNMSC Management and TNMSC Union to adduce evidence in support of their respective stands. Accordingly, on the side of TNMSC Union, 11 exhibits were marked, which included the copy of the attendance register for the period 1995 to 2000 " Ex.4, and copy of the salary register from 1995 to August 2000 " Ex.5, and copy of the bonus register for the financial years 1997 " 98 and 1998 " 99 " Ex.6, and register in connection with the night duty and over-time duty " Ex.7, and Annual report of the Tamil Nadu Medical Services Corporation Limited for the years 1994 " 95, 1995 " 96 and 1996 " 97 " Ex.8. 23. On the side of the TNMSC Management, 6 exhibits were marked including objections dated 20.12.2000 " Ex.1 and additional objection dated 18.12.2000 " Ex.A4 and letter dated 09.01.2001 "Ex.A5 and objections dated 18.02.2001" Ex.6 and arguments dated 08.12.2000 and dated 22.01.2001 " Ex.Nos.3 and 5. 24. After considering the rival contentions and evidence, the Inspector of Labour who is a fact finding authority and who was the Competent Authority to determine the facts, passed final orders on 31.03.2001 and the relevant portion relating to the finding whether Tamil Nadu Act 46 of 1981 was applicable to TNMSC Management or not is extracted below for ready reference:- "In view of the reasons explained supra and the circumstances obtaining it is seen that the respondent being the Tamil Nadu Medical Services Corporation is a commercial establishment and therefore, it would be governed by the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 and that the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status of Workmen) Act, 1981 could be wholly made applicable to the respondent establishment and decided accordingly." (Emphasis Supplied). The authority had thus categorically determined that Tamil Nadu Act 46 of 1981, was applicable to TNMSC Management. 25. Thus, a learned Single Judge of this Court and also the Competent Authority under Tamil Nadu Act 46 of 1981, the Inspector of Labour, the fact finding authority, had determined that the Tamil Nadu Act 46 of 1981 was applicable to TNMSC Management. 26. 25. Thus, a learned Single Judge of this Court and also the Competent Authority under Tamil Nadu Act 46 of 1981, the Inspector of Labour, the fact finding authority, had determined that the Tamil Nadu Act 46 of 1981 was applicable to TNMSC Management. 26. Challenging the order of the Inspector of Labour dated 31.03.2001, TNMSC Management filed W.P.No.17133 of 2001. Seeking implementation of the order of the Inspector of Labour dated 31.03.2001, the 22 named workmen filed W.P.No.15241 of 2009. Both the writ petitions were tagged along with W.A.Nos.1430 and 1431 of 2000 which were already pending before this Court. The two writ appeals and the two writ petitions came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court (F.M.Ibrahim Kalifulla.J., (as his Lordship then was) and T.S.Sivagnanm.J.,). The Division Bench passed a common Judgment in both the two writ appeals and the two writ petitions on 10.12.2009. 27. The Division Bench summarized its finding as follows: "20.In the result, we pass the following order:- (i). Writ Appeal Nos.1430 and 1431 of 2000 stand dismissed as having become infructuous. (ii). W.P.No.17133 of 2001 is dismissed and the order of the Inspector of Labour, Circle-III, Nandanam, Chennai, is confirmed. (iii). W.P.No.15241 of 2009 stands allowed. The appellant-Corporation is directed to provide employment to the petitioners/employees as directed in paragraphs 17 to 19 of this order within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (iv). All the pending miscellaneous petitions are closed." 28. As against the above findings, dismissing the Writ Appeal Nos.1430 and 1431 of 2000, as infructuous, the TNMSC Management did not file any appeal before the Honourable Supreme Court. They had however preferred Civil Appeal Nos.6567 and 6568 of 2012, challenging dismissal of W.P.No.17133 of 2001 and the directions given in W.P.No.15241 of 2009. The Honourable Supreme Court by judgment dated 10.03.2016, held as follows: "1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. It is not in dispute that the members of the respondent-Union are claiming their right under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status To Workmen) Act, 1981. 3. It has been submitted that while deciding the writ petitions and the connected matters, the High Court did not consider the fact whether the aforesaid Act is applicable to the members of the respondent-Union and the said submission appears to be correct. 4. 3. It has been submitted that while deciding the writ petitions and the connected matters, the High Court did not consider the fact whether the aforesaid Act is applicable to the members of the respondent-Union and the said submission appears to be correct. 4. In the afore-stated circumstances, the impugned judgment is set aside and the matters are remanded to the High Court for considering the same afresh in accordance with law. We are sure that the High Court will hear the matters afresh and decide the same in accordance with law. 5. Interim order dated 29th March, 2010 granted by this Court shall continue till the High Court modifies the same after hearing the concerned parties. 6. The parties shall appear before the High Court on 4th April, 2016 so that an early date for further hearing can be fixed as these matters are pending since long. We are sure that the High Court will decide the matters at an early date. 7. In view of the above, the civil appeals are disposed of as allowed. No order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of." 29. In view of the aforesaid directions of the Honourable Supreme Court, it has become incumbent on our part to consider afresh whether Tamil Nadu Act, 46 of 1981 would be applicable to the members of TNMSC Union. 30. Heard arguments advanced by Mr.Sivakumar for TNMSC Management and by Mr.K.R.A.Muthukrishnan for TNMSC Union and by Mr.K.Srinivasa Murthy for petitioner in W.M.P.No.30971 of 2017. 31. The Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act 1981 (Tamil Nadu Act, 46 of 1981) had received the assent of the President on 05.08.1981 and came into force on 01.01.1982. 32. Section 1(3) of the Tamil Nadu Act 46 of 1981, is as follows: "(3) The Act applies to every industrial establishment (not being an establishment of a seasonal character or in which work is performed only intermittently) in which not less than fifty workmen were employed on any day of the preceding twelve months. 32. Section 1(3) of the Tamil Nadu Act 46 of 1981, is as follows: "(3) The Act applies to every industrial establishment (not being an establishment of a seasonal character or in which work is performed only intermittently) in which not less than fifty workmen were employed on any day of the preceding twelve months. If any question arises whether an industrial establishment is of a seasonal character or whether work is performed therein only intermittently the decision of the Government thereon shall be final: Provided that the Government may, by notification, apply the provisions of this Act to any industrial establishment employing such number of workmen less than fifty as may be specified in the notification." (Emphasis supplied) 33. Section 2(3)(e) of the Tamil Nadu Act 46 of 1981, defines the term Industrial Establishment. According to the said Section 2(3)(e), "industrial establishment" means-- "(a) ...... (b) ...... (c) ...... (d) ...... (e) "an establishment as defined in clause (6) of section 2 of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 (Tamil Nadu Act XXXVI of 1947).? (f) ...... (g) ......" (Emphasis supplied). 34. Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Act 46 of 1981, is as follows: "3.Conferment of permanent status to workmen."(1) 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. (2) A workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike, which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman. Explanation I.-- [For the purposes of computing the continuous service referred to in sub-sections (1) and (2), a workman shall be deemed to be continuous service during the days on which --- ] ; (i) he has been laid off under an agreement or as permitted by standing orders made under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (Central Act XX of 1946) or under any other law applicable to the industrial establishment ; (ii) he has been on leave with full wages, earned in the previous years; (iii) he has been absent due to temporary disablement caused by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment ; and (iv) in the case of a female, she has been on maternity leave ; so, however, that the total period of such maternity leave does not exceed twelve weeks. [Explanation II. For the purposes of this section, "law" includes any award, agreement, settlement, instrument or contract of service whether made before or after the commencement of this Act.] (Emphasis supplied) 35. By virtue of the power to formulate rules under Section 10, the Governor of Tamil Nadu also, vide G.O (Ms) No.2813, Labour and Employment, dated 24.12.1981, promulgated the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Rules, 1981. 36. It had been argued that TNMSC Management, if it is to be brought under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 46 of 1981 would have to also come under the definition of 'establishment' as defined in Section 2(6) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act, 1947 (Tamil Nadu Act 36 of 1947). It has also to be therefore examined and determined whether TNMSC Management would fall within the scope of the definition of an establishment as provided under Sections 2(3) and 2(6) under the Tamil Nadu Act, 36 of 1947. The said provisions, Sections 2(3) and 2(6) as follows: "Sec.2(3). "commercial establishment" means an establishment which is not a shop but which carries on the business of advertising, commission, forwarding or commercial agency, or which is a clerical department of a factory or industrial undertaking or which is an insurance company, joint stock company, bank, broker's office or exchange and includes such other establishments as the State Government may by notification declare to be a commercial establishment for the purposes of this Act. Sec.2(6). Sec.2(6). "establishment" means a shop, commercial establishment, restaurant, eating-house, residential hotel, theatre or any place of public amusement or entertainment and includes such establishment as the State Government may by notification declare to be an establishment for the purposes of this Act;" (Emphasis supplied). 37. Tnmsc Management is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 which is wholly owned by the Government of Tamil Nadu. The objects of the company as seen from the memorandum of articles of association are as follows: "(i) To buy or otherwise acquire all kinds and varieties of generic and patent medicines, drugs, mixtures, formulations, tablets, pills, powders, pharmaceutical and medical products, needles, syringes, injectables, vaccines, sera, immunogens, phylacogens, chemicals and surgical dressings, kits and instruments and to sell or supply to various hospitals and other health centres. (ii) To purchase, distribute, assemble, install, maintain or otherwise deal in all types of capital equipments and instruments required in hospitals. (iii) To undertake designing and construction of Hospitals and or other buildings for Government, or for any other person including local authorities, corporations, societies, trusts, companies, firms and individuals. (iv) To establish modern warehouses and Engineering workshops to manufacture, assemble, repair or otherwise maintain various medical equipments, surgical instruments, diagnostic equipments, fire-fighting equipments, furniture and fittings including hospital furniture and also to undertake civil and other general maintenance of hospitals. (v) To establish research and development centres and institutes for medical and para-medical personnel for imparting training in various Techno-Managerial fields." (Emphasis supplied) 38. It is also seen that TNMSC Management has warehouses in Chennai and in all the District Headquarters. These warehouses are used for storing of medicines and drugs. It has been specifically held as a fact by the Inspector of Labour in the order dated 31.03.2001, that TNMSC Management had earned profit of Rs.6.95 lakhs in the year 1994-95, Rs.8.44 lakhs in the year 1995-96 and Rs.1.84 lakhs in the year 1996-97. Consequently, any contention raised that it is run on a "no profit basis" has to be rejected. 39. W.P.No.17133 of 2001 had been filed by TNMSC Management calling into question the order of the Inspector of Labour, an authority under Tamil Nadu Act, 46 of 1981 whereby, the Inspector of Labour had declared that 53 workmen are entitled to the protection of the said Act, and are entitled to be declared as permanent workmen. 39. W.P.No.17133 of 2001 had been filed by TNMSC Management calling into question the order of the Inspector of Labour, an authority under Tamil Nadu Act, 46 of 1981 whereby, the Inspector of Labour had declared that 53 workmen are entitled to the protection of the said Act, and are entitled to be declared as permanent workmen. As pointed out earlier, this order was passed after due enquiry and after giving full opportunity to both TNMSC Management and TNMSC Union to adduce evidence. The said opportunity was availed and documents were produced to support their respective stands. The authority had finally declared that the 53 named workmen are entitled for a declaration that the hold posts which are of permanent status. 40. In Appeal (civil) No.1413 of 2003, the Honourable Supreme Court was concerned with the case of A.Umarani vs. Registrar, Co-operative Societies and Ors. The issue before the Honourable Supreme Court was whether Co-operative Societies would come under the purview of Tamil Nadu Act, 46 of 1981. The Division Bench of the Madras High Court had declared that Co-operative Societies would be covered under the said Act. While deciding that aspect they also decided whether regularization of employees could be granted. The Honourable Supreme Court observed that whether a Co-operative Society would be a Commercial establishment or not, would essentially be a question of fact. 41. In the instant case, to determine the facts, the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.15236 and 17147 of 1998 and the Inspector of Labour, Chennai, under the Tamil Nadu Act,46 of 1981 had extensively examined the constitution of TNMSC Management and the nature of its activities and had determined that the said Act would be applicable to TNMSC Management. This conclusion was drawn on the basis that TNMSC Management was an industrial establishment as defined under Section 2(3)(e) of Tamil Nadu Act, 46 of 1981. 42. We concur with the said findings. 43. In Poona Cantonment Board v. S.K.Das & others, (1993) 2 LLJ 487 , it was held as follows: "The only test of applicability prescribed in Sec.1(3)(b) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is that it must be an 'establishment' within the meaning of a specified type of law in the State. The section does not prescribe any further qualification that such law must also apply to the establishment in question. The section does not prescribe any further qualification that such law must also apply to the establishment in question. It has been held that Pune Cantonment Board would be an establishment within the meaning of Sec.2(1)(i) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 which law is in force in the State of Maharashtra in relation to shops and establishments in the State." (Emphasis supplied). 44. In Ram Kumar Misra v. State of Bihar and others, (1984) AIR SC 537, it had been held that ferry service is an establishment under the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act, 1953. It was held by the Honourable Supreme Court as follows: "The word 'establishment' is defined in Sec.2(6) of the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act, 1953, to mean an establishment which carries on any business, trade or profession or any work in connection with or incidental or ancillary to, any business, trade or profession. The Bhagalpur and Sultanganj ferries are establishments which carry on business or trade of plying ferries across the Ganges and they are clearly covered under Sec.2(6) of the Bihar Shops Act, 1953." (Emphasis supplied). 45. In Smt. Jayaben Suryakant Modi v. Welfare Commissioner, Gujarat Labour Welfare Board, (1996) 2 CLR 1070 , it was held that the Gujarat Labour Welfare Board is an establishment. The extract of that portion of the judgment is as follows: "The Gujarat Labour Welfare Board is an establishment within the meaning of Sec.1(3)(b) of the Payment of Gratuity Act because it is an establishment within the meaning of law which is in force in relation to 'establishment' in Gujarat." (Emphasis supplied). 46. In Indian Red Cross Society v. Vidyaben H. Vyas, (2004) 1 LLJ 802 , it was held that the Indian Red Cross Society is an "establishment". 47. In T.N.Khadi & Village Industries Board v. Dy. Chief Inspector of Factories & others,2002 100 FJR 710, it was held that the Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board is an establishment under Tamil Nadu Act, 36 of 1947. It was held as follows: "The T.N.Khadi and Village Industries Board is an establishment as per the definition under Sec.2 (6) of the Act. " (Emphasis supplied). 48. In State of U.P and Anr. It was held as follows: "The T.N.Khadi and Village Industries Board is an establishment as per the definition under Sec.2 (6) of the Act. " (Emphasis supplied). 48. In State of U.P and Anr. V. Johri Mal, (2004) 4 SCC 714 , while examining the scope for review of an order of a quasi judicial authority, the Honourable Supreme Court held as follows:- "It is well-settled that while exercising the power of judicial review the Court is more concerned with the decision making process than the merit of the decision itself. In doing so, it is often argued by the defender of an impugned decision that the Court is not competent to exercise its power when there are serious disputed questions of facts; when the decision of the Tribunal or the decision of the fact finding body or the arbitrator is given finality by the statute which governs a given situation or which, by nature of the activity the decision maker's opinion on facts is final. But while examining and scrutinizing the decision making process it becomes inevitable to also appreciate the facts of a given case as otherwise the decision cannot be tested under the grounds of illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety." (Emphasis supplied). 49. As a matter of fact, since the Writ Appeal Nos.1430 and 1431 of 2000 filed against the order in WP.Nos.15236 and 17147 of 1998 had been dismissed as infructuous and since no further appeals had been filed against the same by TNMSC Management, the order of the learned Single Judge had become final. 50. However on independent analysis of the facts, we categorically hold that the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act, 46 of 1981 are applicable to TNMSC Management, in view of the fact that, TNMSC Management is an "industrial establishment" as defined under Section 2(3)(e) of the said Act and it is an "establishment" as defined under Section 2(6) of Tamil Nadu Act, 36 of 1947. By the above reasoning we conclusively hold that TNMSC Management is an industrial establishment and is covered under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act, 46 of 1981. 51. This exercise has been undertaken by us, in view of the order of the Honourable Supreme Court holding that the Division Bench on the earlier occasion had not determined whether the said Act was applicable to the members of TNMSC Union. 52. 51. This exercise has been undertaken by us, in view of the order of the Honourable Supreme Court holding that the Division Bench on the earlier occasion had not determined whether the said Act was applicable to the members of TNMSC Union. 52. The thrust of the arguments before us however was that even though there were 22 writ petitioners in W.P.No.15241 of 2009 and one petitioner in WMP.No.30971 of 2017, most of them have obtained alternate profitable employment and consequently, TNMSC Management cannot be forced to put into effect, the order granting them permanent status. This stand by the learned counsel for the TNMSC Management has been strongly refuted by the learned counsels who had appeared for TNMSC Union and for the petitioner in WMP.No.30971 of 2017. A dispute on facts has also arisen over the identity or otherwise of the workmen and also over whether the workmen have obtained alternate employment and whether they are seriously pursing the relief at present in view of long passage of time. 53. We hold that this Court cannot enter into a discussion or launch such a fact finding exercise on those issues. An authority prescribed under the law namely, the Inspector of Labour, under Tamil Nadu Act, 46 of 1981 had declared that a list of 53 workmen were entitled to be conferred with permanent status as employees of TNMSC Management. If they are still denied employment or are denied being conferred with such status by TNMSC Management, then the proper course for them would be to raise an Industrial Dispute questioning non-employment, even though they have been conferred with permanent status by a Competent Authority. 54. We are conscious of the fact that the order of the Inspector of Labour had been passed in the year 2001 and out of the 53 workmen only 22 have approached this Court in W.P.No.15241 of 2009 and one workman had sought to implead himself as a party respondent in W.P.No.17133 of 2001. It would only be appropriate that the facts are determined by due process by a competent authority. We therefore hold that the proper course would be to raise an Industrial Dispute. The issues which have to be decided would be; (i) whether they are available as on date; and (ii) whether, they have been denied employment by TNMSC Management. 55. It would only be appropriate that the facts are determined by due process by a competent authority. We therefore hold that the proper course would be to raise an Industrial Dispute. The issues which have to be decided would be; (i) whether they are available as on date; and (ii) whether, they have been denied employment by TNMSC Management. 55. It would be a futile exercise on our part to direct grant of employment without first determining as a fact the availability of the said workmen. That is an exercise, which a fact finding authority alone can undertake and for that purpose, the aggrieved workmen should raise an Industrial Dispute. If an Industrial Dispute of this nature complaining non-employment is raised, the authority shall not question delay or latches since admittedly, the parties have been at lis atleast from 1998 onwards. 56. Accordingly, we pass the following order: (i) W.P.No.17133 of 2001 is dismissed and we hold that Tamil Nadu Act 46 of 1981 is applicable to TNMSC Management and TNMSC Union. (ii) W.P.No.15241 of 2009 is disposed of by relegating the workmen to raise an Industrial Dispute questioning non-employment. If it is so raised we hope that the Authority shall decide the issues as expeditiously as possible. (iii) We dispose of WMP.No.30971 of 2017, without passing any order impleading the petitioner but we permit the said petitioner to raise an Industrial Dispute questioning non-employment in accordance with law as aforesaid. (iv) No order as to costs.