High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. CHANDRU
MRF Limited, rep.by its General Manager, Arkonam Taluk
Versus
The Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories & Another
W.P.No.20077 of 1998
Decided on: 19-01-2009
NAFH Act - Challenge to order made by Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories - Sections 3, 4, 8, 10(2), 11, 12 - The court discussed the provisions of the NAFH Act and Rules, emphasizing the obligation of the employer to provide holidays, the power of exemption by the Government, penalties for violation, and the framing of rules under the Act. The court highlighted the mandatory nature of the provisions and the employer's obligation to comply with the statutory requirements.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioner, a public limited company, challenged the order made by the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories regarding the approval of festival holidays under the NAFH Act. The petitioner had entered into a settlement with a trade union regarding national and festival holidays, but the first respondent canceled the earlier approval granted to the petitioner, leading to the writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned order of the first respondent was in accordance with the NAFH Act and Rules, and therefore dismissed the writ petition.
Issues: The issues involved the cancellation of the approval of festival holidays by the first respondent, the employer's obligation to provide holidays, and the compliance with the statutory requirements.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the mandatory nature of the provisions of the NAFH Act and Rules, highlighting the employer's obligation to comply with the statutory requirements and the penalties for violation.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed by the court.
The writ petitioner is a public limited company. In this writ petition, the challenge is to the order made by the first respondent Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, Vellore, dated 111. 1998. By the aforesaid order, the first respondent informed the petitioner management that by an order dated 27. 1997, the approval sent by the department in Form III read with Rule 3(1) and (4)(4) of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays) Rules, 1959 (for short NAFH Rules) framed under Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays) Act, 1958 (for short NAFH Act) stood cancelled.
2. The writ petition was admitted on 112. 1998 and an interim-stay was granted on the same day. Due to the default on the part of the respondents, the interim order was also made absolute on 212. 2002. The obligation of the employer was to send a form of list of holidays year after year for approval by the competent authority. It is stated by the counsel for the petitioner that since the impugned order relates to the year 1997, the writ petition has become infructuous and therefore it may be dismissed as such. But, in the present case, since the petitioner had enjoyed an interim order for over ten years and the issue is likely to crop up year after year, this Court declined to accede to the request made by the counsel for the petitioner.
3. Thereafter, Mr.Sanjay Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and the second respondent trade union have entered into a settlement on 11. 1997 under section 18(1). Para 25 of the said settlement deals with national and festival holidays applicable to the workmen. Paragraphs 25.1 and 25.2 may be extracted below:-
25. 1. It has been agreed to by both the parties that the entire factory will work on all the days in a week except the days, which are National Holidays and Deepavali (Festival Holiday) as per the National and Festival Holidays Act, 1958. However, the workmen are allowed to avail four optional Festival Holidays out of the Festival Holidays shown in Annexure IV as required under the National and Festival Holidays Act, 1958, which will be discussed and decided with the union during December every year and for the immediate next year, the optional festival holidays, as well who should avail.
25. 2. It is agreed between both the parties that the workmen will however be eligible for Optional Holidays as per the requirement of work and they will not be entitled for any extra wages/allowances, etc. for staggering the holidays."
4. According to the petitioner management, pursuant to the settlement they have informed the first respondent by letters dated 23. 1997 and 14. 1997 that there are 16 festival holidays besides four compulsory national holidays and sought for his permission to approve their action and send in turn Form III of the NAFH Rules. The first respondent by letter dated 17. 1997 granted approval in Form III but however added Deepavali also another additional holiday, thereby making the total festival holidays as 17 holidays. Out of these 17 holidays, the workmen have been given the choice to avail five festival holidays. But he has however made Deepavali as a compulsory festival holiday thereby making the choice to four. Therefore, when the same procedure was sought to be followed for the calendar year 1998, the first respondent by the impugned order removed the earlier approval granted under form III, which has become the subject matter of the present writ petition.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of the first respondent is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provision of NAFH Act. The workmen have no objection in the procedure adopted by the management. In fact, they are bound by a settlement by which they have also agreed to adopt the procedure laid down by the management. The workmen are no way prejudiced because they will be getting the nine holidays a
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.