JUDGMENT : S.Vaidyanathan, J. The present Writ Appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 02.11.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge, in W.P.No.33787 of 2012. 2. For the sake of brevity, the parties herein are referred to as "Management" (appellants herein) and "workmen" (represented by Union). 3. The workmen have been engaged by the Management and that they have rendered more than 480 days of continuous service in a period of 24 calendar months and that they have been deemed to have attained permanent status. They have approached the Authority seeking permanent status. 4. The Management took a stand that the workmen have been paid by the Maistry, and that there is no direct privity of contract between the Contractor and the workmen in terms of the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. The Management pleaded before the Authority concerned that they had not maintained any record and that these employees are only casual and temporary employees. 5. Though it has been contended by the Management that these workmen have not been recruited in terms of the said Regulation, no evidence had been let in and no document has also been produced by the Management to establish their stand. Moreover, duty is cast upon the Management to submit the particulars of the workmen to the Authority concerned, more so, in the light of Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Rules, 1981, by forwarding the list of casual/temporary employees and the number of days worked by them. 6. It has been vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the Management that, at present, only 3 employees are working and some of them have died. The Apex Court, in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi and others) reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1 , heavily condemned the back door entry in public employment and thus, the employees are not entitled to any relief and the order of the learned Single Judge, confirming the order of the Authority conferring permanent status, needs to be interfered with. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the Management has produced a list showing the number of employees working as on date and some of them died and the said list is extracted below: "8. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the Management has produced a list showing the number of employees working as on date and some of them died and the said list is extracted below: "8. I am advised to submit that the order dt.02.11.2021 passed by the Learned Judge of Hon'ble High Court, Madras by confirming the order dt. 27.02.2012 passed by the Inspector of Labour (i.e., Twentieth respondent) in RC.No.C/3500/2008 is not maintainable in the light of the order dt.10.04.2006 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi and others, reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1 wherein the Apex Court held that in Public employment any person engaged/appointed without following the applicable service rules, cannot claim permanency or regularisation, even if they put long years of service and they cannot seek any preference when others are aspiring for employment in Public Service. The Apex Court further held that regularisation further more cannot give permanence to an employee whose services are adhoc in nature and it was also held that the fact that some persons had been working for a long time would not mean that they had acquired a right for regularisation. 9. I submit that out of 19 casual labourers (i.e. from respondents 1 to 19 herein) only 3 are doing the casual work now 9 persons have not reported for duty for a long time and 7 persons died in the meantime as detailed below : Respondent No. Name Remarks 1 P.S.Thangamani Not reported for work from the year 2013 2 R.Palaniammal Died during 2021 3 A.Marathal Died during 2011 4 K.Kannammal Not reported for work from 31.12.2016 5 K.Palanal Died during 2010 6 A.Sundrammal Died during 2018 7 M.Mariammal Not reported for work from 15.05.2010 8 S.Mallika Begum Not reported for work from 31.01.2020 9 K.Valliammal Not reported for work from 2013 10 T.Sundrammal Not reported for work from 2012 11 S.Sambath Rani Not reported for work from 2011 12 R.Jothimani Not reported for work from 2011 13 K.Sampoornam Not reported for work from Jan.2018 14 M.Kilia Died on 26.04.2014 15 N.Lakshmi Working now 16 P.Jayajothi Working now 17 N.Kanniammal Working now 18 S.Arukkani Died on 26.04.2014 19 A.Rani Died on 31.01.2020 8. Firstly, the decision of the Apex Court in Umadevi's case (supra) may not be applicable to the facts of the present case, as the employees therein have directly approached the High Court without going before the industrial forum. That apart, the provisions of the Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 have not been considered. In the present case on hand, the employees have approached the Authority seeking permanent status and decision has been rendered by the Authority based on evidence let in by the parties and the same has been confirmed by the learned Single Judge. If the Management herein really wanted to adhere to the decision of the Umadevi case (supra), workmen should have been stopped from work immediately after the decision of the Supreme Court (supra), instead of allowing them to continue their work and as the job is of perennial in nature, the attempt to take the shelter under Umadevi case (supra) is not justified. The Management would continue to do the irregularity and whenever there is a problem, they are trying to take the shelter under Umadevi's case (supra), which we do not agree. Furthermore, the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the Management in Umadevi's case (supra), is distinguishable on facts and the facts of each case have to be looked into in its perspective and the decision of the higher forum cannot be applied mechanically blindly, as held by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in 2002 (3) SCC 533 (Padma Sundara Rao Vs. State of Tamil Nadu), wherein the Apex Court has held as follows: "9. Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. There is always peril in treating the words of a speech or judgment as though they are words in a legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances are made in the setting of the facts of a particular case, said Lord Morris in Herrington Vs. British Railways Board ( 1972 (2) WLR 537 = 1972 AC 877 (HL)). Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases." 9. British Railways Board ( 1972 (2) WLR 537 = 1972 AC 877 (HL)). Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases." 9. From the above decision of the Supreme Court in Padma Sundara Rao case, it is clear that one fact may make a world of difference when the same is relied on. Hence, in the case on hand, the said Umadevi's case (quoted supra) is not applicable to the case on hand. 10. That apart, these employees have been working for years together and continuing them without conferring permanent status, is an unfair labour practice in terms of Clause 10 of the Schedule V to the Industrial Disputes Act. 11. There were also proceedings dated 06.08.1999 that had taken effect with effect from 15.07.1999 to minimise the expenses. These employees have been engaged periodically for years together and they have attained the permanent status much prior to that. 12. When there are specific instructions, and those instructions have not been followed and given a go-by, by the establishment, this Court will prevent the Management to take a stand that the employees will not be entitled to be absorbed permanently, more so, when they have chosen not to let in evidence before the Authority concerned. The employees have established that there is "contract of service" and not "contract for service". 13. Since some employees have died and some of them are not reporting for work, as could be seen from the above tabular column, and that there are only three employees working, we are of the view that the three employees shall be granted permanent status in terms of the order of the Authority, as confirmed by the learned Single Judge in the order impugned herein. 14. Insofar as the persons who have died during the pendency of the proceedings, their legal heirs would be entitled to the monetary benefits up to the date of the death of the deceased employees. 15. Insofar as other employees who have not reported for work and attained permanent status, are concerned, it is open to them to raise appropriate industrial dispute, if so advised and if there is no prohibition of limitation under the Industrial Disputes Act. 15. Insofar as other employees who have not reported for work and attained permanent status, are concerned, it is open to them to raise appropriate industrial dispute, if so advised and if there is no prohibition of limitation under the Industrial Disputes Act. If any such dispute is raised, it is open to the appropriate Court to adjudicate the same, in view of the stand taken by the Management that those employees have abandoned their service by not reporting for work. Further, re-employment is not automatic, unless the same is interfered with by the appropriate forum. There is no automatic employment if they raise a dispute even though they have attained permanent status. We make it clear that in this judgment, we are neither giving any liberty to those workmen to raise the industrial dispute, nor condoning the delay in raising such industrial dispute, as it is for the concerned forum to decide. 16. The order of the Authority insofar as the employees who have died and were on the Rolls, are concerned, shall be implemented within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 17. With the above observations/directions, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the miscellaneous petition is closed.