IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30/06/2006
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A. KULASEKARAN
W.P. No. 22606 of 2006
The Lakshmi Mills
Company Ltd
Palladam Branch
Kuppusamy Naidu Puram
Palladam 641 662
Coimbatore .. Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The Deputy
Chief Inspector of Factories
Perumanallur Road
Tiruppur 641 602
2. The President
Kovai Periyar Mavatta Dravida
Panchalai Thozhilalar Munnetra Sangam
NO.48, Tatabad 3rd Street
Coimbatore 641 012 .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying
for a Writ of Certiorari as stated therein.
For Petitioner : Mr. V. Karthic
For Respondents : Mr. C.K. Chandrasekar
for M/s. Row & Reddy for R2
:ORDER
The Management has filed this writ petition praying for a Writ of
Certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent in proceedings
Na.Ka.No.A/6513/2002 and quash its order dated 23.06.2003 granting permanancy
to 49 workers belonging to the second respondent/Union.
2. The workers belonging to the second respondent Union have
joined the petitioner mill in the year 1994, 1995 and 1996, which details are
mentioned in Page No.25 and 26 of the typed set of papers and there is no
dispute about the said period is concerned. It is stated by the workmen that
they continuously worked in the petitioner mill. In other words, they are in
continuous service for a period of 480 days in a period of twenty four
calendar months, hence, they approached the first respondent herein and filed
necessary application praying to pass orders as per the provisions of Tamil
Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act,
1981, hereinafter referred to as Act. On receipt of the same, the first
respondent issued notice to the petitioner herein and conducted enquiry on
30.1 2.2002, 27.01.2003, 06.02.2003, 07.04.2003, 30.04.2003 and 19.05.2003 .
Before the first respondent, on behalf of the petitioner, one Ravichandran,
Labour Welfare Officer appeared and filed a reply on 18.04.2003. The second
respondent Union have filed Ex.P1, Petition dated 1 0.10.2002 filed by the
President of the Union; Ex.P2, Independent petitions dated 16.10.2002 filed by
the 49 employees belonging to the second respondent Union; Ex.P3, reply dated
18.04.2003 filed by the petitioner and Ex.P4, Petition dated 19.05.2003 filed
by the President of the Union. The first respondent, on consideration of the
above documentary evidence found that the workmen are in continuous service
for a period of 480 days in 24 calendar months and directed the petitioner to
grant permanency to them from the date on which they completed 480 days.
Aggrieved by the said order of the first respondent, the present writ petition
has been filed.
3. Mr. Karthic, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the first respondent, without following Rule 3 and 4 of the Tamil Nadu
Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Rules,
1981, hereinafter referred to as Rules, has passed the impugned order without
inspection of records and prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed
by the first respondent.
4. Mr. Chandrasekar, learned counsel appearing for the second
respondent submitted that the proceedings under the Act is summary proceedings
and the petitioner herein has not disputed the fact that the workmen of the
second respondent were continuously employed for 480 days in 24 calendar
months, which is evident that the list of employees and their service period
placed by the workmen before the first respondent was not disputed by the
petitioner. When the facts are not disputed by the petitioner, it is
unwarranted for the first respondent to inspect the factory or to peruse the
records. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the second
respondent also brought to the notice of this Court the reply dated 18.04.2003
filed by the petitioner before the first respondent to show that the above
said facts are not disputed by the petitioner and prayed for dismissal of the
writ petition.
5. I have carefully considered the submission of counsel on
either side and perused the records. Admittedly, the first respondent is
conferred with the power to deal with the matter by way of summary
proceedings. Section 3 of the Act runs as follows:-
“3. Conferment of permanent status to workmen.- (1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force
every workman, who is in continuous service for a period of four hundred and
eighty days in a period of twenty-four calendar months in an industrial
establishment shall be made permanent.
(2) A workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a
period if he is, for5 that period, in uninterrupted service, including service
which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorised leave or an
accident or a strike, which is not illegal, or a lock-out or on account of
non-employment or discharge of such workman for a period which does not exceed
three months and during which period a substitute has been employed in his
place by the employer, or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on
the part of the workman.
6. The corresponding Rule to the above said Section namely Rule 3
and 4 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent
Status to Workmen) Rules, 1981 runs as follows:-
“3. Powers of Inspectors.- In addition to the powers conferred by
Section 5 of the Act, an Inspector shall, for the purpose of giving effect to
the provisions of the Act, have power to do all or any of the following
things, that is to say-
(i) to satisfy himself at each inspection that the prescribed
registers and forms are properly maintained;
(ii) to point out all such defects or irregularities as he may have
observed and to give orders for their rectification and to record and furnish
to the employer a summary of the defects or irregularities and of his orders;
(iii) to note how far the defects pointed out at previous
inspections have been removed and how far orders previously issued have been
complied with:
(iv) to require any employer to supply or send any return or true
copy of any document or information relating to the provisions of the Act:
(v) to prosecute, conduct or defend before a Court any complaint
or other proceedings arising under the Act.
4. Information required by the Inspector.- The employer of an
industrial establishment shall furnish any information that an Inspector may
require for the purpose of satisfying himself whether any provision of the Act
or the rules made thereunder has been complied with or whether any order of an
Inspector has been duly carried out. Any demand by an Inspector of any such
information if made during the course of an inspection shall be complied with
forthwith if the information is available in the industrial premises or if
made in writing shall be complied with, within seven days on receipt thereof.”
7. It is evident from the provisions of Section 3 of the Act that
when a workmen is in continuous service for a period of 480 days in a period
of twenty four calendar months in an industrial establishment, he shall be
made permanent. As rightly pointed out by the counsel for the second
respondent, the list containing the date of entry of the workers into service
was filed claiming that ever since the said date they are in continuous
service in the petitioner/management, which was not disputed by the petitioner
before the first respondent. The petitioner/ Management has admitted the fact
that all the benefits were extended to the employees of the second respondent
on par with the permanent workers, but very strangely stated in their
correspondence with the second respondent that if permanency sought for is
granted to their members, the same has to be extended to the employees of
other unions, hence, the permanency was not granted. When the petitioner has
not disputed the fact that the employees of the second respondent Union have
completed 480 days of service continuously, it is unnecessary for the first
respondent to go for inspection of the factory or records. The first
respondent, considering the valid documentary evidence produced by the second
respondent Union has rightly passed an order directing the petitioner to grant
permanent status to the employees of the second respondent Union and this
Court finds no reason to interfere with the same.
8. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
rsh
To
The Dy. Chief Inspector of
Factories
Perumanallur Road
Tiruppur 641 602