Back
1985 II LLJ 376 Mad
M Chandurkar, S Dev
Metal Powder Co. Ltd., Tirumangalam And Anr.
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu And Anr.
Decided on : 5/2/1985
.
Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 (Act 46 of 1981) - Constitutional validity - Challenge - Whether the Act is in violation of Art. 14, 19(1)(g) and 300-A of the Constitution of India - Whether the provisions of the Act are vague and unworkable - Whether the provisions of the Act amount to an unreasonable restriction on the right of the employer - Whether the Act is retrospective in character - Held, the Act is not violative of Art. 14, 19(1)(g) and 300-A of the Constitution of India - The provisions of the Act are not vague and unworkable - The provisions of the Act do not amount to an unreasonable restriction on the right of the employer - The Act is not retrospective in character - Petitions partly allowed.
Fact of the Case:
The Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 (Act 46 of 1981) was challenged on the ground that it was violative of Art. 14, 19(1)(g) and 300-A of the Constitution of India. It was also contended that the provisions of the Act were vague and unworkable and that they amounted to an unreasonable restriction on the right of the employer. Further, it was argued that the Act was retrospective in character.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Act was not violative of Art. 14, 19(1)(g) and 300-A of the Constitution of India. It also held that the provisions of the Act were not vague and unworkable and that they did not amount to an unreasonable restriction on the right of the employer. Further, the Court held that the Act was not retrospective in character.
Issues: 1. Whether the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 (Act 46 of 1981) is violative of Art. 14, 19(1)(g) and 300-A of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the provisions of the Act are vague and unworkable? 3. Whether the provisions of the Act amount to an unreasonable restriction on the right of the employer? 4. Whether the Act is retrospective in character?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Act is not violative of Art. 14, 19(1)(g) and 300-A of the Constitution of India because it is a welfare legislation intended to bring about an improvement in the conditions of labour and the permissible action may be so construed as to give effect to the object of the legislature and as far as possible the intention of the legislature should not be allowed to be defeated. 2. The provisions of the Act are not vague and unworkable because the factors enumerated in S. 3(2) do not require any long procedure for determination and the Inspector has to be furnished with the necessary details in form II which will enable him to ascertain whether the law is being complied with or not. 3. The provisions of the Act do not amount to an unreasonable restriction on the right of the employer because the legislature has taken note of the practice which is prevalent in industrial establishments, viz., that workmen who have been in employment for a long period of time are no being given the benefits which permanent workmen get and the legislature is the best judge as to what is the remedy in such a situation. 4. The Act is not retrospective in character because it operates after it has come into force, but for giving effect to the Act, some events which have occurred prior to the Act have to be considered.
Final Decision: Petitions partly allowed.
1. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners challenging the constitutional validity of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, (Act 46 of 1981), hereinafter referred to as the Act. This Act came into force on 1st January, 1982. The statement of objects and reasons of the Act shows that a large number of workers in industrial establishments were kept under temporary rolls and were given only consolidated wages, which were far below the occupational wages and did not carry the benefit of dearness allowance paid to permanent employees. Similarly, they were denied various other benefits like payment of festival, cyclone and marriage advances, payment of ex-gratia over and above the statutory bonus, supply of uniforms and tea, preference for the dependents of the employees in the matter of employment, etc. The Act, was, therefore, enacted by way of a special legislation, to confer permanent status to the workmen in various industrial establishments, who have put in service for a period of 480 days in a period of 24 calendar months in such establishments.
2. The crucial provision in the Act, which deals with conferment of permanent status to workmen is in S. 3 which reads 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 authorised leave or an accident or a strike, which is not illegal, or a lock-out 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.
Explanation : For the purposes of this section, the number of days on which a workman has worked in an industrial establishment shall include 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."
In the definition section, the terms "employer", "industrial establishment" and "workman" have been defined. The primary duty of implementing the Act is vested in the Inspectors, who are appointed under S. 4 of the Act. Section 5 lays down the powers and duties of the Inspectors. Under S. 5, the Inspector has the power to enter at all reasonable times and with such assistants, if any, who are persons in the service of the Government or of any local authority as he thinks fit to take with him, any industrial establishment; and make such examination of the industrial establishment and of any registers, records and notices and take on the spot or elsewhere the evidence of such person as he may deem necessary, for carrying out the purposes of the Act. The Inspector is also entitled under S. 5(c) to exercise such other powers as may be necessary for carrying out the purposes of the Act. A penalty is provided for contravention of the provisions of S. 3. Under S. 6, every employer who contravenes the provisions of S. 3 can be punished with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, and in the case of continuing offe
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
