Back
2009 Supreme(Mad) 123
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. CHANDRU
The Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, rep. by its Regional Manager Versus
The Inspector of Labour, Erode & Another
W.P. No.17013 of 1999
Decided on: 12-01-2009
For the Petitioner:Selvanayagam, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Sneha, Govt. Advocate.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status of Workmen) Act, 1981, and the powers and duties of Inspectors under Section 5.
Headnote:
Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status of Workmen) Act, 1981 - Permanent Status - Section 4(1) of the Act - Section 3(1) - Section 5 - [4(1), 3(1), 5]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a State-owned Civil Supplies Corporation, filed a writ petition against the order of the Inspector of Labour granting permanent status to an employee. The employee's union sought permanent status for a technical staff member, claiming he had worked beyond the required period. The Corporation contested, stating the employee was not a regular worker.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the employee had worked for the required period and was eligible for permanent status under Section 3(1) of the Act. The court also emphasized the powers and duties of Inspectors under Section 5 and upheld the decision of the first respondent.
Issues: The main issue was whether the employee was eligible for permanent status under the Act, and whether the first respondent's decision was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the interpretation of Section 3(1) and Section 5 of the Act, emphasizing that the non obstante provision of Section 3(1) prevails over any other law in force. The court also highlighted the powers of Inspectors under Section 5, empowering them to take necessary actions for implementing the Act.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, upholding the decision of the first respondent to grant permanent status to the employee.
The petitioner-State owned Civil Supplies Corporation, aggrieved by the order dated 23. 1999 passed by the first respondent-Inspector of Labour, filed the present writ petition.
2. The second respondent-Union approached the first respondent, who is the competent Authority under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status of Workmen) Act, 1981 (Tamil Nadu Act 46 of 1981) (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), seeking for grant of permanent status to one Jagannathan, who is working as technical staff in the godown of Bhavani Taluk coming under the control of the Regional Manager, Erode. It was alleged by the second respondent-Union that since the said Jagannathan was engaged as a Godown Keeper from 9. 1991 and as on 212. 1992, he has put in service beyond 480 days, he is eligible to be confirmed to the permanent status.
3. The Authorities took up the case on its file in Na.Ka.No.E/5610/95 and issued notice to the petitioner-Corporation. The petitioner-Corporation filed a written statement dated 26. 1995. The contention raised by the respondents was that the said Jagannathan was engaged for fumigating the foodgrains in the godown and he was not a regular employee. The Union filed rejoiner, refuting the allegations alleged by the petitioner-Corporation. The written argument was also filed by the workman. The respondent-Corporation also filed counter written argument stating that the workman Jagannathan was not employed by giving any appointment order. He was also not recruited by the Employment Exchange. He was not given work on daily basis.
4. The authorities, on the basis of materials placed before it, came to the conclusion that the said Jagannathan had worked for the following periods:-
@gzpahsh; bgah; gzpahw;wpa fhyk; gzpg[hpe;j ehl;fs; jpU//f/bQfehjd; 1/9/91 Kjy; 731 ehl;fs; 31/8/93 tiu 1/9/93 Kjy; 122 ehl;fs; 31/12/93 tiu 1/1/94 Kjy; 365 ehl;fs; 31/12/94 tiu
1/1/95 Kjy; 365 ehl;fs; 31/12/95 tiu 1/1/96 Kjy; 366 ehl;fs; 31/12/96 tiu 1/1/97 Kjy; 365 ehl;fs; 31/12/97 tiu 1/1/98 Kjy; 90 ehl;fs; 31/3/98 tiu@
5. The authorities also found that the said Jagannathan was paid in the vouchers except for Sundays and other days, which he has not worked. They also found that the person being temporarily employed has no relevance for considering the grant of permanency in terms of Section 3 of the Act. Therefore, the Authorities found that since he worked for 482 days from 9. 91 till 212. 1992, he is eligible for permanent status as workman. This order was challenged in this writ petition.
6. The writ petition was admitted on 110. 1999. Status quo order was also granted, which was also made absolute on 9. 2003. Today, when the matter came up for final hearing, Mr. Selvanayagam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order of the Authorities was illegal and liable to be interfered with by this Court. He submitted that there was no appointment order for the said workman Jagannathan and he was employed intermittently.
7. The effect of Section 3(1) of the Act came up for consideration in respect of very same Corporation in the decision reported in the case of Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Modern Rice Mill Engineering Section Employees Union (Represented By Its Secretary), Sundarakottai V. Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation (Represented By Its Managing Director), Madras And Another (1999(3) L.L.N. 286), wherein it is held as follows:-
" 11. Section 3(1), being a non obstante provision, it prevails over any law for the time being in force which includes any Government orders or Government instructions. Therefore, want of sanctioned posts as required under General Service Rules cannot take away the rights conferred under S.3(1) of the Act. Similarly, Government orders which require that the appointment should be made only through Employment Exchange also cannot be a ground to refuse the right provided under Section 3(1) of the Act of the petitioner
