ORDER
Prabha Sridevan, J.
1. The least that is expected of a Corporation like the respondent is fairness in dealing with the employees, if not compassion. The records in this case prove that the Corporation has neither been fair nor compassionate.
2. The petitioner joined the tyre plant of the respondent-Corporation on April 16, 1984. There was a fire accident on September 3, 1984 in the tyre plant. Though there was no loss of life, the petitioner was injured in the fire and he was treated as an in-patient in the Government Hospital and thereafter in a private nursing home. The records show that the injuries were sustained at 6.15 A.M. at the Ramanathapuram Tyre Plant of the Jeeva Transport Corporation, which is the respondent-Corporation. This is affirmed by the accident register, dated September 3, 1984. Therefore, there cannot be any dispute that the accident had occurred in the employment.
3. The petitioner recovered, and was given employment in the Kangeyam depot of the respondent-Corporation as helper to the mechanic on March 27, 1985. Misfortune again visited the petitioner while he was working on S.K.M. Shaft. Iron dust particle hit his left eye and he was injured. He was taken to the hospital, which was an approved hospital for the respondent for treatment. Thereafter, he was referred to the Rajaji Government Hospital. He was given a pass by the respondent-Corporation to go to Madurai for treatment. He was an in-patient from September 9, 1986 to September 18, 1996. He was then taken to Aravind Eye Hospital, Madurai. He was an in-patient in Aravind Eye Hospital and finally his left eye was removed. The removal of the left eye was also due to an injury caused during and in the course of employment.
4. He was taken back on duty on November 12, 1986, and given light duty as an office boy, because of his physical disability. He was given work in the diesel bunk, he was filling diesel for the respondent’s buses.
5. The case of the petitioner is that after March 27, 1985, his employment was recorded by the respondent in the time cards under various duties, in order to avoid regularisation of his service. The petitioner took several “avatars” as M. Sakthivel, M. Ajubudin, M. Mariappan, M. Kalaiselvan, M. Mohanraj, S. Shanmugam, M. Kandaswamy, A. Anand, M. Chandran, M. Kumar, M. Singaram, M. Chandrasekaran, etc. According to the petitioner, his service was continuous without any break except for an artificial break from September 1, 1988 to September 29, 1988. After this artificial break, he joined duty on September 30, 1988, but was given job of a ticket canvasser. Again he was issued time cards under various names from April 1, 1990, time cards were not issued and instead wage was paid daily. The petitioner has produced vouchers from Kangeyam depot bearing the signature of Branch Manager or higher officials. The petitioner pleads that notwithstanding continuous employment for eleven years, his services have not been regularised and a writ of mandamus is sought for, for regularisation.
6. In the counter, none of the averments are denied either regarding the two accidents in the course of employment, to the issuance of time cards under various names. It is merely stated that the petitioner was not given employment as a Tyreman, but only as a sweeper on a non-muster-roll basis and that he had abstained from duty without permission. According to the respondent, his claim for regularisation cannot be countenanced.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the various records, which have been filed in the typed set of papers and in fact even produced the original of the time cards, which bear various names, but have been issued to the petitioner, namely, Sri M. Sekar.
8. The learned counsel also placed reliance in Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Modern Rice Mill Engineering Section Employees Union v. Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation reported in 1999 (3) L.L.N. 286, in A. Palanivel and Ors. v. Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board reported in 1997 (3) L.L.N. 509, in Mamundiraj and Ors. v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., Tricky, and Anr. reported in 1999-I-LLJ-622 (Mad-DB), Irudhayanathan and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. reported in 1997 (3) L.L.N. 544 and in K. Duraisamy v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (rep by its Chairman), and Ors. reported in 1992-II-LLJ-197(Mad).
9. The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the petitioner was only a ticket canvasser, a temporary workman and if at all, he can be considered for regularisation, it is only subject to availability of vacancy.
10. The Tamil Nadu Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981, was enacted only to alleviate the hardship suffered by the workmen, who have been kept on a temporary status continuously and without any justification.
Section 3(1) (ii) of the Act reads thus:
“3(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 authorised leave or an accident or a strike, which is not illegal, or a lockout or on account of non-employment or discharge of such workman for a period which does not exceed three months and during which period a substitute has been employed in his place by the employer, or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman.
(3) He has been absent due to temporary disablement caused by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment; and……”
11. In Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Modern Rice Mill Engineering Section Employees Union v. Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation (supra) the learned Judge held as follows:
“Section 3(1), being a non obstante provision, it prevails over any law for the time being in force which includes any service rules, Government orders or Government instructions. Therefore, want of sanctioned posts as required under general service rules cannot take away the rights conferred under Section 3(1) of the Act. Similarly, Government orders which require that the appointment should be made only through Employment Exchange also cannot be a ground to refuse the right provided under Section 3(1) of the Act of the petitioners if they comply with the requirements prescribed under Section 3(1). Therefore, it is not open for the respondent to take shelter under any other law in force much less any Government orders, Government instructions to deny the benefits conferred under Section 3(1) of the Act, to the petitioners, if they satisfy the conditions prescribed therein, irrespective of the availability of sanctioned posts or sponsorship from Employment Exchange.”
In that case, the workman whose services sought to be regularised was a casual workman.
12. In A. Palanivel and Ors. v. Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board (supra) petitioners prayed for a mandamus to be absorbed as permanent employees. In that case, Surinder Singh and Anr. v. Engineer-in-Chief, Central Public Works Department and Ors. , was relied on Para. 1, at pp. 404 and 405 of LLJ:
“The Central Government, the State Governments and likewise, all public sector undertakings are expected to function like model and enlightened employers and arguments such as those which were advanced before us that the principle of equal pay for equal work is an abstract doctrine which cannot be enforced in a Court of law should ill come from the mouths of the State and State Undertakings. We allow both the writ petitions and direct the respondents, as in the Nehru Yuvak Kendra case (supra) to pay the same salary and allowances as are paid to regular and permanent employees with effect from the date when they were respectively employed……”
In that case the learned Judge held that the workers would not be dragged to go before the authority constituted under the Act because the respondents had not established their case except for making a bald denial in the counter-affidavit.
13. In N. Mamundiraj and Ors. v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., Tricky and Anr. (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that the Act such as the one on hand is a social welfare legislation for protecting the weaker sections of the society and that there is no gain saying that the workman belongs to the weaker section. It was observed as follows at p. 627 of 1999-I-LLJ-622:
“It is well settled that a social welfare legislation has to be liberally and broadly construed. Though a Judge must not alter the material of which the Act is woven, but he can and should iron out the creases by construing the statute so that the intention of the Legislature may not be treated in vain or left to operate in air though a word of caution has been that a statute cannot be extended to improve a case for which no provisions have clearly and undoubtedly been made. Hyper-technical analysis cannot be pushed to the point of defeating justice. Law has to be interpreted to meet different situations and facts keeping in view that the enactments are not drafted by divine procedure and with perfect clarity as it is not possible to foresee various controversies and the Legislature does not deal with specific controversies and the treacherous human ingenuity to break the law for greed.”
The Division Bench commented upon the limitless human ingenuity, which operates to avoid the intendment of the legislation and it was also observed that the methodology adopted by the respondent to deprive workmen of the conferment of permanent status is clearly an unfair labour practice to deprive the workmen of the benefits, which the statute has specifically conferred on them. The following three principles were enunciated as forming the soul of the section.
14. In M. Irudhayanathan and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. (supra), the learned Judge observed as follows:
“….. Section 3 of the Act confers the benefits of permanent status to workmen and once the statutory conditions prescribed under Section 3 of the Act are satisfied or complied with, the workmen concerned acquire, an indefeasible right to become a permanent employee in that particular industrial establishment. The conferment of permanent status to the particular employee does not depend upon the want of vacancy or want of cadre strength.,…”
15. In K. Duraisamy v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (represented by its Chairman), Madras, and Ors. (supra), the workman claiming permanent status is a part time sweeper and the learned Judge held that the respondents were under statutory obligations to absorb the petitioner on a permanent status.
16. All these cases come to the aid of the petitioner. It is unfortunate that so many years after independence, the petitioner has gone around in ignorance of the various protective measures that a welfare state gives him. The petitioner has been injured at least twice during and in the course of employment and he is unaware that he could claim compensation from the employer for what he has suffered. All that this pathetic man claims is conferment of permanent status and the respondent-Corporation has thought it fit to drag this matter over a decade. The conduct of the respondent-Corporation is unpardonable. The counter does not even deny that time cards were issued under various names to the petitioner only to avoid giving him a permanent status. The original time cards were produced and in at least two of them it is seen that the petitioner’s correct name was written and thereafter over-written. Fictitious names have been introduced. It is also relevant to note that for some reason though the names in the time cards are changed, the initial “M” remains constant, one wonders why. As observed with anguish by the Division Bench in the above case, ” if it is not an unfair labour practice, it is difficult to assume what more can be the unfair labour practice.” It has also been held in the decision cited above that the respondents need not wait for vacancy to appoint for conferment of permanent status. The petitioner has worked since 1984 in the respondent-Corporation and the respondent- Corporation shall consider his claim for conferment of permanent status in accordance with law keeping in mind the observations of this Court in this judgment. The attitude of the Corporation deserves reproach and therefore the petitioner is entitled to costs. The writ petition is allowed with costs of Rs. 2000. His claim for regularisation shall be considered from the date on which he has completed the continuous 480 days. Consequently, connected WMP is closed.