The exemption granted to factories under G.O. Ms. No. 545 dated February 10, 1950, from the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947, applies to establishments governed by the Factories Act, 1948.

JUDGMENT

(Common Prayer: Writ Petitions filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the order dated 20.12.2013 passed by the first respondent in TNSE No.II/IA7/2013 and TNSE No.II/IA2/2013 and to quash the same.)

Common Order

1. The order passed by the authority under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The writ petitioner is a Company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act and in its factory at SIPCOT Industrial Park, Irrungattukottai, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kacheepuram District in Tamil Nadu, the petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacture of passenger cars.

2. The second respondent joined the service of the petitioner on 01.11.2006 as Business Associate Trainee-II and he was made permanent on 01.06.2008. The second respondent was promoted as Junior Officer [General Affairs] and his place of work is situated inside the factory. The Car manufacturing factory is within the meaning of Factories Act, 1948 and the second respondent was a worker within the meaning of Section 2(1) of the said Act.

3. The petitioner has narrated the chief functions and duties of the second respondent in his position as Junior Officer [General Affairs]. While so, on account of certain allegations, the second respondent was terminated from service. Challenging the order of termination, the second respondent approached the first respondent authority under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947. The first respondent authority dismissed the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner regarding the maintainability of the petition. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner mainly contended that the petitioner Management marked documents with the consent of the second respondent employee. By consent, nine documents were marked. Those documents reveal that the petitioner establishment in which the second respondent was working is a factory and registered under the Factories Act. Further, they have marked the documents relating to Payment of Salary, Muster roll, Adult worker register and Salary slip. Considering all the documents, the first respondent authority also made a finding that the petitioner Management has established that it is a factory and the second respondent is working in the factory premises. While made a finding that the second respondent was working in the factory premises in paragraph 9 of the order, the first respondent has turn around and taken a decision that the petitioner has not established that it is a factory in paragraph 10, for which no document is relied upon.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated that in paragraph 9, finding is made based on the documents filed by the petitioner Management, however the finding in paragraph 10 is not supported with any document. Therefore, it is self contradictory and running counter to the finding arrived in paragraph 9 based on the documents filed by the writ petitioner with the consent of the second respondent.

6. Regarding the maintainability of the petition under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947, the petitioner relied upon the Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.545 Development dated 10.02.1950. The said Government Order was elaborately considered by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Management of E.I.D. Parry [India] Ltd., vs. Commissioner of Labour and others reported in [2001] 3 LW 820, wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench made following observations with reference to the exemption granted to the factory premises in the Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.545 dated 10.02.1950:

“15.To appreciate the contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellant, it is necessary to go through the said G.O. which reads thus:

"G.O. Ms. No. 545 Development, dated February 10, 195