The Managing Director v. The Presiding Office
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.08.2023 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI and W.M.P.No.8529 of 2018 The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited, Thalamuthu Natarajan Maligai, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.
... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Presiding Officer, II Additional Labour Court, Chennai.
2.B.Gopi 3.R.Ravikumar 4.V.Chandrasekar 5.K.Shanmugam 6.B.Vinodkumar 7.T.Manikandan 8.V.P.Rajavel 9.E.Joseph 10.R.Saravanamoorthy 11.P.Kanagaraj 12.B.Devaraj 13.B.Mahalingam 14.K.Aruldas 15.C.T.Subashkumar 16.R.Rajaprakash 1/14
17.S.Payasraj 18.V.Jeevanantham 19.S.Nagamani 20.S.Samy 21.P.Gurupandi 22.R.Marimuthu 23.S.Vaikundraj 24.R.Balakrishnan 25.V.Kaliappan 26.H.J.Ahmad Singh 27.G.Krishnakumar 28.C.Murugan 29.N.Ganesan 30.C.V.Sajithkumar 31.R.Krishnan 32.A.Kalaiarasu 33.K.Sivayogachandran 34.R.Nareshbabu 35.J.J.Murugan 36.V.Sajeesh 37.K.Sivarajan 38.D.Iyyappan 39.S. Selvakumar 40.B.Subashkannan 41.K.L.Sivakumar 42.B.Sridhar 43.B.Mahesh 44.B.Ashokkumar 45.M.Subramani 46.B.Nagaraj 47.B.Iyyappan 48.E.Raman 49.M.Nagarajan 50.A.Bhoopalan 51.V.Senthoorpandi 52.V.Ramasamy 53.G.Senthilkumar 54.A.Muthukrishnan 55.G.Robert kennedy 2/14
56.C.Vijayaraj 57.M.Essakivelraj 58.A.Thirulogasundar 59.R.Kalaivanan 60.M.Muthukrishnan 61.P.Aarumiuganainar 62.K.Aarumugam 63.K.Muthukamatchi 64.P.Jeyakumar 65.C.Nagarajan 66.E.Thangaraj 67.S.Issacraj 68.P.Thiyagarajan 69.V.Anandaraj 70.I.Karthikesavan 71.C.Kalyanasundaram 72.P.Thangapandi 73.B.Muthukumar 74.M.Balakrishnan 75.M.Balamurugan 76.M.Iyyannar 77.S.Mariappan 78.N.Thangamani 79.C.Muthamizhselvan 80.S.Ramesh 81.J.Thomas 82.S.Ganesan 83.V.Selvaraj 84.S.Govindaraj 85.M.Essakiappan 86.P.Thangapandian 87.M.Manoharan 88.B.Vinayakaraja 89.A.Kumar 90.A.Mayakrishnan 91.M.Selvam 92.R.Sivakumar 93.P.Saravanan 94.G.Devadas 3/14
95.M.Murugan 96.P.Karuppaiya 97.L.Karupusamy 98.R.Vilvalingam 99.R.Chandrasekaran 100.S.Kaliraj 101.C.Chakravathyraja 102.P.Millas 103.M.Krishnamurthy 104.K.Kumar 105.P.Solairaj 106.A.Bhoominathan 107.C.Arulmani 108.K.C.Balaraj 109.M.Arvindan 110.V.Vijayakumar 111.N.Uthirapathi 112.C.Muthukumarasamy 113.M.Ravikumar 114.M.Kaliraj 115.U.Gnanasekaran 116.A.Elangovan 117.A.Kathiresan 118.J.Jose Amen Felix 119.C.Mariasuresh 120.E.Vaikundaraman 121.G.Vasudevan 122.R.Manoharan 123.C.Mariappan 124.P.karupasamy 125.Bijujohn 126.K.N.Kumar 127.S.Sugenthirapathi 128.B.Sasikumar 129.R.Rajalingam 130.K.Rajalingam 131.S.Srinivasan 132.D.Munieswaran 133.T.Kumaraiyya 4/14
134.C.Padmakumar 135.T.Kumar 136.V.Narayanasamy 137.C.Sivalingam 138.S.Vincent Murugadas 139.M.Murugan 140.L.Sastha Manikandan 141.B.Iyyappan 142.R.Dhanushkumar 143.B.B.Sivaraman 144.D.Dhanapal 145.C.Raju 146.P.Aachuthamenon 147.T.Bhaskar 148.P.Venkatachalam 149.G.Pathinettu 150.R.Justin 151.M.Murugan 152.T.Vijay Anand 153.C.Uruvadi 154.M.Karuppasamy 155.S.Nagaraj 156.A.Senthilkumaran 157.P.Senthilkumar 158.C.K.Jegannivash 159.K.Justin Jebakumar 160.P.Sundararaj 161.I.Saravanmuthu 162.P.Panchanthan 163.K.Palanisamy 164.M.Santhanam 165.K.Velu 166.L.Manikandan 167.S.Selvadas 168.M.Sudalai 169.V.Palanisamy 170.T.Murugan 171.A.Muthuramalingam 172.K.Chandrasekaran 5/14
173.P.Katturaja 174.T.Rathinakumar 175.M.Sabarisan 176.M.Marisamy 177.S.Ramakrishnan 178.T.Kumar 179.E.Arulraj 180.C.Thalapathi 181.P.Somasundram 182.S.Murthy 183.N.Sivasubramanian 184.C.Shankar 185.M.Murugan 186.K.Mohanasundram 187.P.Ganesan 188.T.Thirunavakarasu 189.K.Dhanapalan 190.C.Samydurai 191.R.Bharathidasan 192.M.Ramachandran 193.S.Bhoopathiraja 194.Y.Xavier 195.V.Dhanapal 196.M.Thangamani 197.C.Suresh 198.S.Thavasu 199.S.Alaguraj 200.R.Veerakumar 201.G.Arumaidurai 202.I.Pandy 203.K.Murugesan 204.J.Ramu 205.N.V.Murugan 206.P.Natarajan 207.U.Ramesh 208.S.Dhayalan 209.K.Rajendran 210.M.Janardhanan 211.P.A.Saravanan 6/14
212.P.Vedhachalam 213.J.Palani 214.P.Pandian 215.B.Elumalai 216.A.S.Venkatesan 217.J.Ravi 218.R.Shanmugam 219.S.Manikandan 220.G.Suresh 221.K.MOhan 222.K.Babu 223.M.C.Sekar 224.S.Naresh 225.R.Prakash 226.S.N.Dillidhamotharan 227.S.Vasu 228.K.C.Kumaran 229.K.Gopinathan 230.H.Princly 231.M.Saravanan 232.P.M.Ethiraaj 233.K.D.Karthikeyan 234.T.Bhoopalan 235.C.Kaliyappan 236.B.Balasubramani 237.K.Saravanan 238.V.Govindaraju 239.M.Kumar 240.M.S.Sekar 241.A.Madhanmohan 242.M.Loganathan 243.S.Suresh 244.M.S.Dhamodharan 245.M.Iyyappan 246.M.Mohan 247.K.Kuppan 248.G.Munirathinam 249.M.Lakshmanan 250.M.Thanuvel 7/14
251.C.Shanmugam 252.G.Velayudham 253.C.Stalin 254.G.M.Kumar 255.E.Babu 256.K.Raja 257.S.Annamalai 258.B.Ramu 259.A.Sundaram 260.P.Thangamani 261.D.Purushothaman C/o.Tasmac Uzhiyer Maanila Sammelanam (CITU), Nallasivan Memorial, No.27, Mosque St, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the order dated 22.09.2017 passed in claim petition Nos.1645 of 2011 to 1854 of 2011, 405 of 2014 to 419 of 2014, 421 to 431, 434, 435, 436, 439 to 441, 443, 444, 446, 447, 449 to 455, 460, 463 to 468 of 2014 on the file of the first respondent, II Additional Labour Court, Chennai and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.Sanjoy Mohan, SC for M/s.K.Sathish Kumar For Respondents : Labour Court [R1] No appearance [R2 to R261] *****
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to quash the order dated 22.09.2017 passed in claim petition Nos.1645 of 2011 to 1854 of 2011, 405 of 8/14
2014 to 419 of 2014, 421 to 431, 434, 435, 436, 439 to 441, 443, 444, 446, 447, 449 to 455, 460, 463 to 468 of 2014 on the file of the first respondent, II Additional Labour Court, Chennai.
2. The case of the petitioner Corporation/TASMAC is that, it is a Government Company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act and is wholly owned by the Government of Tamil Nadu. It is a marketing company and its main business is dealing in retail trade of Indian made Foreign Liquor.
The private respondents/workmen have filed claim petitions under Section 33 C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short 'the ID Act') before the first respondent/Labour Court claiming (i) difference amount between the actual pay paid to them and the minimum wages payable to them as fixed by the Government under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (in short 'MW Act') (ii) overtime wages for the work allegedly done by them for more than 8 hours per day and 48 hours per week in weekly days under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays) Act, 1953 and (iii) double wages for the work allegedly done on National and Festival holidays under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays) Act, 1953 for the periods from January, 2004 to December, 2009.
impugned order as against the petitioner Corporation. Challenging the same, the petitioner Corporation filed the above writ petition.
3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner Corporation submitted that, the petitioner Corporation is wholly owned by the State Government and hence, the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act, 1947 is not applicable as per Section 4(1) of the said Act and also the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays) Act, 1958 is not applicable as per Section 10 (1)(c). However, the Labour Court awarded the minimum wages in favour of the private respondents/workmen, even though the MW Act is not applicable to the petitioner Corporation, which is not sustainable. If at all the private respondents/workmen wants to claim minimum wages, they have to approach the authority under Section 20 of the the MW Act, since the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to decide the issue. Without approaching the competent authority under the MW Act, filing claim petition under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act is not sustainable. However, the Labour Court inadvertently granted relief in favour of the workmen, which is not sustainable. 10/14
4. Further, he submitted that the claim petition can be filed under Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act based on the existing rights. However, in the present, there is no existing right for claiming minimum wages, since the petitioner Corporation specifically took a plea before the Labour Court that the MW Act is not applicable to them. Even assuming that MW Act is applicable to the petitioner Corporation, however, the Industrial Tribunal have no jurisdiction to decide the issue and it is for the authority under the MW Act to take decision with regard to awarding minimum wages. In the present case, the first respondent, without jurisdiction decided the minimum wages in favour of the private respondents/workmen, which is not sustainable. In support of his contention, he relied upon the order passed by the Madurai Bench of this Court in W.P.(MD).No.17607 of 2015, dated 14.12.2018. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the writ petition.
5. Though respondents 2 to 261 was served and their names were printed in the cause list, none appeared on behalf of them. Hence, this Court is left with no other option except to proceed further based on the available records.
6. Admittedly, the private respondents/workmen filed claim petitions under Section 33 (C)(2) of the ID Act before the first respondent/Labour Court. 11/14
The claim petitions filed by the workmen is maintainable before the Labour Court only if there is any existing rights between the petitioner Corporation and the workmen. Based on the right, they are entitled to file claim petitions before the Labour Court. In the present case, the petitioner Corporation specifically claimed that, the petitioner Corporation is quasi government owned by the Government of Tamil Nadu, the Government of Tamil Nadu did not pay minimum wages, since they pay wages on different form over and above the MW Act. If there is a difference amount as claimed by the workmen on par with MW Act, they have to workout the remedy before the authority under Section 20 of the MW Act and not before the first respondent/Labour Court under Section 33(C)(2) of the ID Act. However, the workmen filed claim petitions under Section 33(C)(2) of the ID Act, which is not sustainable.
7. Further, the petitioner Corporation is owned by the State Government, thereby, if the workmen are entitled for any claim, they have to approach the authority under the MW Act, however, the Labour Court have no jurisdiction to decide the issue in terms of Section 33(C)(2) of the Act. Hence, the claim made by the workmen is not maintainable. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Labour Court is liable to be set aside.
12/14
8. Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed and the impugned order dated 22.09.2017 passed by the first respondent, II Additional Labour Court, Chennai in Claim Petition Nos.1645 of 2011 to 1854 of 2011, 405 of 2014 to 419 of 2014, 421 to 431, 434, 435, 436, 439 to 441, 443, 444, 446, 447, 449 to 455, 460, 463 to 468 of 201 is set aside. However, liberty is granted to the private respondents/workmen to file appropriate petition before the authority under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If such petition is filed, the authority under the Minimum Wages Act is directed to decide the issue within a period of twelve (12) weeks thereafter.
Further, liberty is granted to the private respondents/workmen to raise claim before the authority under the industrial disputes Act for claiming overtime wages and National and Festival holidays wages under the relevant provisions and the period pending before the Labour Court as well as this Court is excluded for the purpose of limitation. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 07.08.
M.DHANDAPANI, J., sp To The Presiding Officer, II Additional Labour Court, Chennai.
07.08.2023 14/14