TASMAC must confer permanent status on employees completing the statutory continuous-service period.

The second respondents in the batch were employed as salesmen in TASMAC shops and sought permanent status before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Enforcement).

By separate orders dated 14 May 2026, the authority directed TASMAC to confer permanent status on them.

TASMAC challenged those orders under Article 226 of the Constitution.

At the hearing, the Court was shown a Madurai Bench Division Bench judgment dismissing TASMAC’s appeals against comparable orders granting permanent status.

Whether the Assistant Commissioner’s orders directing TASMAC to confer permanent status on the respondent workmen should be quashed.

Whether the prior Madurai Bench Division Bench decision confirming comparable permanent-status orders governed these petitions.

The Court referred to the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981, under which the respondent authority had acted, and stated that management is legally bound to grant permanent status to employees who have completed the mandatory period of continuous service.

It also relied on the Madurai Bench Division Bench judgment in W.A. (MD) Nos. 2017–2022 of 2025 and 651–755 of 2026, which had dismissed TASMAC’s appeals and thereby confirmed comparable orders granting permanent status.

The Court treated the Madurai Bench Division Bench decision as controlling because it concerned comparable applications for permanent status, orders by the same labour authority, and TASMAC’s unsuccessful challenges to those orders.

In light of that decision and its statement that qualifying continuous service entitles employees to permanent status, the Court found no basis to grant TASMAC’s requested writ relief.

It made no order as to costs and closed the connected miscellaneous petitions.