Back
2007 Supreme(Mad) 2353
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA & THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE K. SUGUNA
Tamil Nadu Handicrafts Development Corporation Limited, rep. by its Secretary & Another
Versus
The Inspector of Factories Range No.II, Madurai & Others
W.A.No.411 of 1998 & 2410 of 1999
Decided On : 27-07-2007
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the entitlement to permanent status under the Permanent Status Act, 1981 applies to all types of workmen, including piece-rate workers, who have completed the required service, and that proper opportunity must be given to the appellant to defend its case as per the law.
Headnote:
Permanent Status Act - Workmen - Factories Act, 1948, Section 3, Section 5 - The court discussed the provisions of the Permanent Status Act, 1981, particularly Section 3, which provides for the conferment of permanent status to workmen. The court also examined Section 5, which deals with the power and duties of the Inspector. The interpretation of the term 'workman' as defined in Section 2(4) was crucial to the court's decision, as it determined the eligibility of the workers for permanent status. The court emphasized that the entitlement to permanent status under Section 3 applies to all types of workmen, including piece-rate workers, daily wage workers, temporary workers, and adhoc workers, who have completed 480 days of service in a period of 24 calendar months. The court also considered the issue of providing proper opportunity to the appellant to defend its case, as required by the law.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a corporation manufacturing brass artwork and handicrafts, challenged orders directing it to confer permanent status on certain workers under the Permanent Status Act, 1981. The appellant argued that the workers, being piece-rate workers, were not eligible for permanent status under Section 3 of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the workers, including piece-rate workers, were covered by the definition of 'workman' under Section 2(4) and were entitled to permanent status under Section 3, having completed the required service. The court also held that the appellant was given proper opportunity to defend its case, and therefore, dismissed the appeals.
Issues: The key issues involved the eligibility of piece-rate workers for permanent status under the Permanent Status Act, 1981, and the adequacy of the opportunity given to the appellant to defend its case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the definition of 'workman' under Section 2(4) and the entitlement to permanent status under Section 3 of the Permanent Status Act, 1981. The court also considered the requirement of providing proper opportunity to the appellant as per the law.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals, finding no merit in the appellant's arguments, and ruled in favor of granting permanent status to the workers. No costs were awarded.
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.
As both the appeals have been preferred by the same appellant and common question of law involved, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.
2. At the instance of the 2nd respondent, A. Palaniswamy of W.A.No.411/98, the first respondent, Inspector of Factories, Madurai-2, issued impugned order No.A/1755/96 dated 4th July, 1996, having found that the 2nd respondent workman completed continuous service of 480 days, and directed the appellant to make him permanent on or before 25th July,1996.
At the instance of the 2nd respondent-General Secretary of Madurai General Workers Union, Madurai, of W.A.No.2410/99, the first respondent, Inspector of Factories, Range-II, Madurai-2, passed another order No.E/872/97 dated 9th April, 1997, and directed the appellant to give permanent status to the 23 workmen shown in the list annexed thereto by 25th May, 1997.
Both the aforesaid orders directing the appellants to confer permanent status in favour of the workman was challenged by filling two separate writ petitions, which have been dismissed by impugned order dated 2nd Feb., 1998, in W.P.No.10374/96 and order dated 26th Oct., 1999, in W.P. No. 5964/97, which are the subject matter of these appeals.
3. As both the appeals could be disposed of on a short point, it is not necessary to discuss all the facts, expect the relevant ones, as stated hereunder.
The appellant, Tamil Nadu Handicrafts Development Corporation Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Corporation’) is a wholly owned company of the Government of Tamil Nadu, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It is a factory guided under the Factories Act, 1948, and it manufactures brass artwork and handicrafts in its work shed. It has not been disputed that the concerned persons, including the 2nd respondent, A. Palaniswamy and 23 others whose list has been enclosed with letter No.E/872/97 dated 9th April, 1997, are working under the appellant in its brass art work and handicrafts factory. They perform the duty of ‘Pilvin’, ‘Nakas’, ‘Polin’, ‘Moster’, ‘Moltel’, Lathe drilling’, ‘Ruffing’, ‘Meltor’, ‘Polish’, ‘Hand drilling’, etc.
It is also not in dispute that the appellant’s factories are guided by the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Permanent Status Act, 1981’). Under Section 3, provisions have been made for conferment of permanent status to workmen, 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 a 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 authorized 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.
Explanation I. – [For the purposes of computing the continuous service referred to in sub-sections (1) and (2), a workman shall be deemed to be in continuous service during 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
