The Management v. Inspector Of Labour

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 11.07.2017

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.A.[MD].No.1235 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 The Management, Agricultural College and ResearchInstitution, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Killikulam, Vallanaadu, Turicorin District.

: Appellant/ Petitioner Vs.

1.Inspector of Labour, (Authority under Tamilnadu Conferment of Permanent Status Act 1981), Labour Department, 104, Beach Road, Tuticorin -1.

2.S.Veeramani 3.G.Rajendiran 4.P.Ramasamy 5.K.Rajasaraswathi 6.K.Mayakrishnan 7.S.Boothathan 8.S.Thanburajan 9.V.Vallinayagam 10.S.Manickam 11.S.Mahesh 12.G.Rathinasamy 13.S.Kanaga Narayanan 14.N.Nallamuthu 15.E.Packiam 16.B.Balaji 17.S.Ponnusamy 18.S.Petchimuthu 19.R.Thanappan 20.The Agricultural Production Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

: Respondents/ Respondents (20th respondent is suo motu impleaded vide Court order dated 13.02.2017)

PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set aside the order dated 19.07.2011 passed in W.P.(MD) No.10691 of 2007 on the file of this Court. Prayer in WP(MD). 10691/ 2007 :

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the first respondent in his proceedings dated 6.7.2007 in Na.ka.No.E/8374/2004 and to quash the same.

For Appellants : Mr.S.Kadarkarai For Respondents : Mr.M.E.Ilango for RR2 to 5, 7, 9 to 11,14 to 17 Mr.D.Nallathambi for RR6, 12 and 13

JUDGMENT

************* [Judgment of the Court was delivered by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.] The Management of Agricultural College and Research Institution, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Killikulam, Vallanaadu, Tuticoin is on appeal, questioning the order dated 19 July 2011, dismissing W.P.(MD) No.10691 of 2007 filed by them. 2.The writ petition was filed challenging the award dated 06 July 2007 in Na.Ka.No.E/8374/2004 passed by the Inspector of Labour (The Authority under Tamilnadu Conferment of Permanent Status Act 1981). The respondents 2 to 19 in the writ petition were originally appointed for attending the regular farm operations, as agricultural casual labourers in the appellant institution.

They had completed 480 days in 24 calender months and therefore, they claimed conferment of permanent status, by invoking the provision of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to the Workmen) Act, 1981. The authority, on appreciation of evidence, recorded a finding that the workmen concerned had completed 480 days in the preceding 24 months and therefore, they were entitled to conferment on permanent status. The contentions raised by the appellant herein with regard to the jurisdiction of the statutory authority were negatived by the learned single Judge.

3.The counsel representing the workmen informed the Court that if the award passed by the statutory authority was implemented without any delay, they would give up their claim for backwages. Finding the said offer be fair and equitable, the writ petition was dismissed. The leaned single Judge modified the award of the authority to the effect that the respondents 2 to 19 will not be

entitled to backwages, if they are conferred permanent status, with effect from the date of award i.e. on 06 July 2007. Not satisfied with the said order, the present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellant.

4.This appeal came up for hearing on various dates. On 13 February 2017, the Division Bench suo motu impleaded the Agricultural Production Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai 9, as a party respondent. When the matter was taken up on 19 April 2017, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that out of the 22 claimants, services of 14 casual workers had been regularised and 2 of them have left the work and only 4 casual labourers and 1 driver on contract basis were required to be considered for regularization. Since the matter was pending before the Government, the University was not able to pass any order. The Division Bench adjourned the matter so as to enable the University to take a decision and get approval of the Government in an appropriate manner.

5.When the matter was taken up again today, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted the letter in No.4865/AU/20176, dated 13 June 2017 issued by the 20th respondent/Agricultural Production Commissioner Principal Secretary to Government, addressed to the Registrar, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University stating that compliance of the proposal of the University was not found feasible by the Government.

6.We have considered the entire materials on record. When out of 22 claimants, 14 have already been regularized, there is no justification leaving out the remaining 7. Though the learned counsel for the appellant stated that 2 of them have left the wok, Mr.M.E.Ilango, learned counsel for the workmen stated that only one of them left the work while the other reached the age of superannuation.

7.Be that as it may, we direct the appellant to submit a fresh proposal in respect of those covered in the present proceedings alone and forward the same to the Government for approval. The 20th respondent/Agricultural Production Commission and Principal Secretary to Government, is directed to regularise the remaining workers covered in the present proceedings. 8.We issue the direction set out above because it is not the case of the appellant that the workers left out of the benefit of regulaisation by the Government stand on a different footing. All of them had moved the statutory authority seeking conferment of permanent status and the authority passed an award in their favour and the learned single Judge upheld the said award. During the pendency of the appeal proceedings, 14 out of 22 were given the benefit of regularization. There is no justification for non regularization of the remaining workmen. We place on record the

offer already made by the counsel for the workmen that if they were regularised with effect from the date of award, they would not claim backwages.

9.This writ petition is disposed of with the direction set out above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-I) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To

1. Inspector of Labour, (Authority under Tamilnadu Conferment of Permanent Status Act 1981), Labour Department, 104, Beach Road,

2. The Agricultural Production Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chnnai - 600 009.

+1cc to Mr.M.E.Ilango, Advocate Sr.No.64622 +1cc to Mr.S.Kadarkarai, Advocate Sr.No.64695 ARUL VB/KP/SAR2/19.07.2017/4P/5C JUDGMENT MADE IN W.A.[MD].No.1235 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 11.07.2017