Back
2023 Supreme(Mad) 2218
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. MAHADEVAN, MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, JJ.
Arasu Rubber Corporation Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director, Nagercoil – Appellant
Versus
S. Sundar & Others – Respondents
W.A. Nos. 1124, 1150 & 1151 of 2021
Decided On : 13-07-2023
For the Appellant:Kavitha Nithyanandan, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1, M. Guruprasad, for R2 to R4, G. Nanmaran, SGP
The main legal point established in the judgment is that workmen must possess the necessary qualification and there must be sanctioned posts available for regularization. The court emphasized that the executive has the prerogative to fix qualifications for a post and that the court cannot relax the qualifications through a judicial process. The court also highlighted that the creation of posts falls within the exclusive domain of the executive.
Headnote:
Permanent Status Act - Plantation Worker - Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 - Summary: The court considered whether workmen, after completing 480 days of service as Plantation Workers, could be regularized as Forest Watchers. The court found that the workmen were entitled to permanency under Section 3 of the Permanent Status Act. The court also discussed the nature of work, service conditions, and eligibility criteria for the post of Forest Watcher, and concluded that the workmen were not eligible for regularization as Forest Watchers. The court allowed the appeals and set aside the order.
Fact of the Case:
The workmen sought regularization as Forest Watchers in the Forest Department after working as Plantation Workers for over three decades. The court found that the relief sought in the writ petitions and the relief granted were irreconcilable. The workmen were engaged to protect rubber plantations and were permanent workmen on the rolls of the Corporation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the workmen were not eligible for regularization as Forest Watchers and that the order to regularize them was erroneous. The court also noted that the workmen had been made permanent and had received all benefits, and their claim could not be considered.
Issues: The court considered the eligibility of the workmen for regularization as Forest Watchers, the nature of their work, and the relief sought in the writ petitions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the workmen were not eligible for regularization as Forest Watchers and that the order to regularize them was erroneous. The court also noted that the workmen had been made permanent and had received all benefits, and their claim could not be considered.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeals and set aside the order. No costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer in W.A.No.1124 of 2021: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent praying to set aside the order of this Court in W.P.No.7070 of 2006 dated 22.12.2011.
in W.A.No.1150 of 2021: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent praying to set aside the order of this Court in W.P.No.5924 of 2006 dated 22.12.2011.
in W.A.No.1151 of 2021: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent praying to set aside the order of this Court in W.P.No.5923 of 2006 dated 22.12.2011.)
For the Appellant: Kavitha Nithyanandan, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1, M. Guruprasad, for R2 to R4, G. Nanmaran, SGP
Common Judgment:
Mohammed Shaffiq, J.
1. The short question that arises for consideration in these writ appeals is as to whether the workmen on completion of 480 days of service as Plantation Worker and thus being entitled to permanency in terms of Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as “the Permanent Status Act”), can be regularized as Forest Watcher which is a sanctioned post and placed on time scale of pay.
2. Brief facts:
(i) The appellant, which was originally called as Government Rubber Plantations, became Arasu Rubber Corporation Limited (in short “Corporation”), a company fully owned by the Government of Tamil Nadu with effect from 01.10.1984.
(ii) The 1st respondent(s) / writ petitioner(s) (hereinafter referred to as “the workmen”) in these writ appeals viz., S.Sundar, P.Denson and B.Vikraman, joined the services of the Tamil Nadu Forest Department on 18.11.1972, 15.07.1977 and 01.08.1976 respectively.
(iii) The workmen were engaged on daily wages with the Corporation which functioned under the control of Tamil Nadu Forest Department. The workmen worked with the appellant Corporation without interruption.
(iv) While so, seeking a direction to the appellant Corporation to regularize their services as Forest Watcher in the Forest Department with effect from the date of their appointments, the workmen filed O.A.Nos.1351, 1359 and 1350 of 2002 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai.
(v) On abolition of the Tribunal, the aforesaid original applications were transferred to the file of this Court and renumbered as W.P.Nos.7070, 5924 and 5923 of 2006 respectively. The Corporation, which was not originally arrayed as a party in the original applications, was subsequently, impleaded during the pendency of the writ petitions and they filed a common affidavit in all the writ petitions.
(vi) According to the Corporation, the workmen were engaged on daily wages to protect the rubber plantation and not as a Forest Watcher under the Forest Department and they were extended the benefit of various legislations such as The Plantation Labour Act 1936, The Tamil Nadu Industrial Employment (National and Festival Holidays) Act 1981, The Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952 and The Payment of Bonus Act 1965.
(vii) The workmen were being paid minimum wages as notified by the Government of Tamil Nadu under the Minimum Wages Act.
(viii) The workmen having been in employment for more than three decades were however not granted permanent status nor regularized. The Corporation being an Industrial Establishment in terms of Section 2(3) of the Permanent Status Act and the plantation as defined under the Plantation Labour Act was covered under Section 2(3)(b) under the Permanent Status Act, the workmen claimed that they ought to have been conferred with permanent status. (ix) In the writ petitions, the workmen stated that they have been in continuous employment for over three decades and thus, in terms of Section 3 of the Permanent Status Act, they ought to have been made permanent.
3. Order of the Writ Court:
By a common order dated 22.12.2011, the aforesaid
