Judgment:
ORDER
1. The petitioner has filed this petition for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 to appoint the petitioner to any one of the permanent post of Sweeper or Helper or Assessor in the office of the Superintending Engineer, Mettur Electricity System, Mettur Dam, the third respondent herein.
2. On August 1, 1974, the petitioner was taken as a part-time Sweeper by the third respondent in the office of the Superintending Engineer, Mettur Electricity System, Mettur. The petitioner is being paid Rs. 25 per month as his salary. The petitioner has passed S.S.L.C., and he is qualified to be appointed to the permanent post of Sweeper. The petitioner possessed a long appearance both as Sweeper as well as Helper in the same department from August 1, 1974. The petitioner on March 27, 1979, August 13, 1980, December 26, 1981, October 7, 1982 and even thereafter made representations to the respondents to give him a permanent appointment. The third respondent in his proceedings Lr. No. SEM/HC/C4/F.1/741/81 dated June 17, 1981 addressed a letter to the second respondent recommending the petitioner's name for appointment to the permanent post of Sweeper.
3. The case of the petitioner is that though there are vacancies in the office of the third respondent, the request of the petition for permanent appointment as Sweeper is not considered by the respondents. In these circumstances, the petition has filed the present writ petition claiming the relief referred to above.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', apply to the respondents-establishment. The petitioner is a permanent workman-within the meaning of the Act since he has put in more than 480 days of continuous uninterrupted service in a period of 24 calendar months. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in view of the fact that the petitioner is a permanent workman within the meaning of S. 3 of the Act, the respondents are under a statutory obligation to give a permanent appointment to the petitioner as Sweeper. There is merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been continuously working as a part-time Sweeper in the office of the third respondent from 1974 onwards, and that the petitioner has put in more than 480 days of continuous uninterrupted service in a period of 24 calendar months. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent, it is not specifically denied that the petitioner has put in 480 days of continuous uninterrupted service in a period of 24 calendar months. All that is stated in the counter affidavit is that the petitioner attends to the work of sweeping on part-time basis from 200 P.M. to 5.00 P.M. under the respondents and, therefore, he cannot be construed as a workman, within the meaning of S. 3 of the Act. When it is stated in the counter affidavit that temporary workers and casual labourers are workmen of the respondents establishment, there is no reason for not considering the petitioner who is in service of the third respondent from 1974 onwards as a workman of the respondents establishment. It is not in dispute that S. 3 of the Act applies to the respondents establishment. S. 3 of the Act confers permanent rights to workman under certain circumstances. S. 3 provides that, '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.' S. 2(4) of the Act defines a 'workman' as follows :
'Workman means any person employed in any Industrial establishment to do any skilled or unskilled, manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment he express or implied.'
The definition of 'workman' given in S. 2(4) of the Act does not make any distinction between a full-time and part-time worker and, therefore the term 'workman' defined is S. 2(4) of the Act will take in both full-time and part-time workers provided they fulfil the conditions prescribed in S. 3 of the Act. The letter dated August 31, 1979 addressed by the Superintending Engineer, Mettur Dam, to the Chief Engineer, Anna Salai, Madras, shows that the petitioner has been working as a part-time Sweeper in the Madras Electricity System from August 16, 1974. This Court in W.P. No. 8298 of 1983 has held that the post of the Sweeper in the respondents establishment is an unskilled post and appointments of such sweepers can be made without resorting to calling for applications from employment exchange. It is needless to state that the Sweeper does not require any special skill and high educational qualifications for discharging his duties as a Sweeper. When the petitioner has put in more than 480 days of continuous uninterrupted service in a period of 24 calendar months in the establishment of the respondents as a part time Sweeper the petitioner is entitled to the conferment of the permanent status as contemplated in S. 3 of the Act. In these circumstances, the respondents are under a statutory obligation to appoint the petitioner as a Sweeper on a permanent status. There is absolutely no justification for denying the permanent post to the petitioner, notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner has made several representations to the respondents requesting them to appoint him permanently as a Sweeper in the office of the third respondent. In view of the above discussion, the petitioner is entitled to the relief claimed in the writ petition.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner in the permanent post of a Sweeper in the office of the third respondent within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, there will be no order as to costs.