2023 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 5663
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT RESERVED ON : 12.01.2023 PRONOUNCED ON : 01.06.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY W.P.(MD)No.9322 of 2014 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2014 The Management, Cotton Research Station, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District. ... Petitioner vs.
1.Inspector of Labour, (Authority under Tamilnadu conferment of permanent status act 1981), Labour Department, Virudhunagar.
2.V.Gurusamy ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the proceeding of the 1st respondent passed in Na.Ka.No.27/2012-6, dated 31.01.2014 and to quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Kadarkarai For R2 : Mr.S.M.Mohan Gandhi
O R D E R
This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to quash the impugned proceeding of the 1st respondent, dated 31.01.2014. The 2nd respondent has filed a petition before the 1st respondent under Conferment of Permanent Status Act, 1981 and the same was allowed. Aggrieved over the same, the present writ petition is filed.
2. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner institution is Cotton Research Station, engaged in developing cotton seeds for the invention of new hybrid crop varieties and new agricultural technologies and extension of such research finding to the farmers through Government Department. The petitioner research station is a constituent unit of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, which has been established and governed by the Special Act called Tamil Nadu Agricultural University Act, 1971, enacted by the Legislature of the State of Tamil Nadu and the Statutes and Regulations framed thereunder. The petitioner institute has regularly appointed employees for attending regular farms operations. The 2nd respondent was engaged as agricultural casual laborers on and off, as and when contingencies and exigencies arose in the seasonal agricultural operations in research fields. The engagement of agricultural casual labourers is only sporadic and the agricultural casual labourers who seek work in the petitioner research station is engaged in required number on need basis and on day-to-day basis subject to availability of work, climatic conditions, nature of work, fund availability for this purpose etc., and they are not engaged continuously. The 2nd respondent was originally engaged as a daily wager in the year 1982 and he is not engaged for a continuous period of 280 days for 4 years till 1985 and he was never treated as a regular employee in the petitioner's research station. Thereafter he has not turned for work till 1996. Thereafter. The 2nd respondent approached the Labour Court seeking continuous job with backwages from the year 1988. The Labor Court passed an award, dated 13.07.2009, to the effect that directing the petitioner herein to take back the 2nd respondent as a casual labour without any backwages. As per the said direction of the Labour Court, the petitioner engaged the 2nd respondent as a daily wager from 10.02.2010 and now he is working as a casual labour. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent and other six persons filed applications before the 1st respondent seeking Conferment of Permanent Status in the petitioner institution and contended that they are continuously working for more that 480 days.
3. The further contention of the petitioner institution is that the University adopts a Selection policy by interviewing eligible candidates and recruits suitable candidates to fill-up vacancies. But the agricultural casual labourers are not recruited and appointed against any sanctioned posts. Therefore, the petitioner herein resisted the petition by filing detailed counter and additional counter statements wherein a specific plea was raised that the Tamil Nadu Agricultural is not an establishment under Shops and Establishments Act as held by this Court. Further as per section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University Act, the objects of the University are to impart Education in different branches of Agricultural and allied sciences. It is not a factory or plantation or an establishment and therefore, the petitioner institute is not an industrial establishment under Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981. It is not an establishment notified by the Government under Shops and Establishments Act. Further, the petitioner institution is not a plantation and not registered under Plantation Labour act. The
2nd respondent is an agricultural coolie (casual laborers) and engaged on daily wages. Since these factors are not considered by the 1st respondent while passing the impugned order, the present writ petition is filed.
4