Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 1684
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. CHANDRU
Kumar Polydot Mills Limited Rep.by its Director
Versus
The Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories & Others
W.P.No.18310 of 2000 & W.P.No.17891 of 2001
Decided On : 12-04-2010
For the petitioner:R. Parthiban, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1, A. Arumugam,Spl.G.P. for R2 to R25, Ajay Khose, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act 1981 and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to determine the status of the workers and the legality of the orders passed by the authorities.
Headnote:
Industrial Establishment - Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workman) Act, 1981 - Section 3 - TN Act 46 of 1981 - The court discussed the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act 1981 and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It interpreted the definition of workmen, apprentices, and the grounds for retrenchment under the Acts. The court also considered relevant case laws to determine the status of the workers and the legality of the orders passed by the authorities.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved two writ petitions filed by a petitioner challenging the orders passed by the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories and the Joint Commissioner of Labour under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workman) Act, 1981 and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The workmen claimed permanency under the TN Act 46 of 1981, while the management sought permission for retrenchment.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed both writ petitions, upholding the orders passed by the authorities. It found that the workmen were entitled to permanency under the TN Act 46 of 1981 and that the grounds for retrenchment were not established by the management.
Issues: The issues revolved around the status of the workmen, their entitlement to permanency, and the legality of the orders passed by the authorities under the TN Act 46 of 1981 and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the interpretation of the definitions of workmen and apprentices under the Acts, as well as relevant case laws to determine the status of the workers and the legality of the orders passed by the authorities.
Final Decision: Both writ petitions were dismissed by the court, affirming the orders passed by the authorities. No costs were awarded.
Heard both sides.
2. These two writ petitions were filed by one and the same petitioner. In the first writ petition, the challenge is to the order passed by the first respondent Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories who is an authority constituted under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workman) Act, 1981.
3. By an impugned order dated 21.08.2000, the authority held except one T.Radhakrishnan (R24) all other workmen have completed 480 days of service within 24 calendar months and therefore, they were directed to be conferred permanent status in terms of Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act 1981 (for short TN Act 46 of 1981). In respect of R24, (T.Radhakrishnan), it was directed that on the date by which he completes 480 days of service, he will also be made permanent.
4. The writ petition was admitted and notice was ordered to the respondents workmen. Pending the writ petition, an interim stay was granted. Subsequently, when the workmen filed a vacate stay application, this Court by an order dated 23.09.2003 directed the main writ petition itself to be disposed of. Hence, it was directed to be listed for final hearing. The official respondents have filed a counter affidavit dated 14.04.2004.
5. In the meanwhile, the very same Management filed the second writ petition being W.P.No.17891 of 2000, challenging the order of the first respondent Joint Commissioner of Labour, Coimbatore made in Retrenchment Application No.1 of 2001 rejecting the request for grant of retrenchment by an order dated 08.03.2001. The petitioner Management filed an application dated 08.01.2001 seeking prior permission to retrench the respondents 2 to 25. The authority after considering the relevant circumstances and after due notice to the contesting respondents refused to grant the permission. When the writ petition came up on 27.09.2001, only notice of motion was ordered. Subsequently, the matter was admitted on 19.02.2003.
6. In view of the interconnectivity between the two writ petitions, they were heard together and a common order is passed.
7. It is the claim of the workmen that they joined the petitioner mill between May 90 and June 1995. They were directly involved in production work like any other permanent workmen right from the date of their initial appointment. Though they were also performing the work of regular workmen, they were not made permanent and were not given the scale of pay and other benefits available to the permanent workmen. Therefore, they filed an application dated 20.05.1999 before the authority under Section 3(1) of the T.N.Act 46 of 1981 claiming permanency.
8. G.M.Ramaswamy (R10) and A.Sebastian (R21) were examined as witnesses on the side of the workmen. They also filed 8 exhibits which were marked on their side. On the side of the Management one Janarthanan was examined and 9 exhibits were marked. After hearing the arguments of both sides, the authority passed the impugned order. While calculating the number of days worked by the workmen, the authority excluded the period of Apprenticeship i.e., a period of three years as provided under the model standing orders applicable to the workmen. It was also proved that the workmen were not given any training and it was misnomer to call them as trainees. They were given timecards and were made to work in all the shifts in all places of work along with the permanent workmen. On the strength of the order passed by the authority, the workmen claimed permanency. But however even the existing work was denied to them from December 1999 till March 2000. A petition claiming lay off compensation was filed before the Labour Court in C.P.No.444 of 2000.
9. In the meanwhile, the Management filed an application seeking permission to retrench them under Section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short I.D.Act) before the Joint Commissioner of Labour, who is the com
