Madras High Court
The Special Officer vs The Labour Inspector on 26 July, 2021
W.A.No.1460 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
W.A.No.1460/2013 and M.P.No.1/2013
The Special Officer,
S-672, Attur Agricultural Producers
Co-op. Marketing Society Limited,
Pudupettai Post,
Attur, Salem District. ... Appellant
-vs-
1. The Labour Inspector,
Authority under Tamil Nadu
Industrial Establishment
(Conferment of Permanent
Status) Act of 1981,
Office of Labour Inspector,
Salem.
2. K.Raja
3. P.Alagesan
4. D.Madhavan
5. S.Lakshmanan
6. K.Rajamanickam
7. N.Periyasamy
8. Jayaran
9. Chinnaiyan
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/10
W.A.No.1460 of 2013
10. Bharathi Raja
11. Raghupathy
12. G.Selvakumar
13. K.Dhamodharan
14. R.Velmurugan
15. P.Velanan
16. R.Prakash
17. R.Velmurugan
18. M.C.Raman
19. T.Periasamy
20. P.Ponvelavan
21. K.Bhoopathy
22. J.Chinraj
23. A.Manickam
24. K.Thangavel
25. J.Kannan
26. M.Periyasami
27. K.Veerasami
28. S.Chinnasamy
29. K.Perumal
30. C.Mahalingam
31. M.Lakshmanan
http://www.judis.nic.in
2/10
W.A.No.1460 of 2013
32. M.Annamalai
33. R.Gopal
34. K.Kumar
35. K.Rangan
36. M.M.Murugesan
37. C.Chandran
38. K.Govindaraj
39. G.Paramasivam
40. G.Sivakumar ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
against the order dated 27.11.2012 made in W.P.No.17355/2005 by a
learned Single Judge of this Court.
For Appellant : Mr.M.R.Raghavan
For 1st Respondent : Mr.T.Arunkumar,
Government Advocate
For respondents : Mr.K.V.Shanmuganathan
2 to 10, 12 to 14,
17 to 20, 22, 26,
30, 32, 33 and 40
http://www.judis.nic.in
3/10
W.A.No.1460 of 2013
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was pronounced by T.RAJA.J)
This Writ Appeal has been directed against the order dated
27.11.2012 made in W.P.No.17355/2005 by a learned Single Judge of
this Court.
2. Mr.M.R.Raghavan, learned Counsel appearing for the
appellant would submit that the 39 private respondents, are not
entitled for any relief as against the appellant herein as there was no
any contract of employment existed between them. This vital aspect
has been overlooked by both the Labour Inspector, an Authority
under Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent
Status) Act of 1981 and also the learned Single Judge of this Court.
When the private respondents wanted conferment of permanent
status on completion of 240 days within 12 calendar months, they
should have established the direct employment and proved the same
on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence which they have
not discharged. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the
learned Single Judge is erroneous. Hence, the same is also liable to
be interfered with, he pleaded.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.No.1460 of 2013
3. Learned Counsel for the appellant would further submit
that the ratio laid down by the Apex Court reported in 1974 S.C.C. (L
& S) 331 in Silver Jubliee Tailoring House and Others v. Chief
Inspector of Shops and Establishments and another may not be
applicable to the facts of the present case. Further, the ratio laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dharangadhra
Chemical Works Limited v. State of Saurashtra and others,
reported in A.I.R. 1957 Supreme Court 264(1) also cannot be
made applicable to the present case for the reason that the private
respondents are employed to do the works of the members of the
society. Hence the relief granted by the authorities below are liable to
be set aside. More over, the 39 private respondents have not even
demonstrated before the authority concerned or the learned Single
Judge that they have satisfied the definition of ''workmen'' as
contemplated under Section 2(4) of the Permanency Act. As they
were not employed in the Industrial Establishment and the appellant
being a Society, they cannot be brought under the definition of
''workmen''. Therefore, when the 39 private respondents have not
even established with sufficient evidence that they were all employed
by the appellant continuously for 240 days within 12 calendar months
and that they have not even substantiated that they have satisfied
the definition of ''workmen'' as contemplated under Section 2(4) of
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.No.1460 of 2013
the Permanency Act, the impugned order passed by the learned
Single Judge is liable to be set aside, he pleaded.
4. Heard Mr.T.Arunkumar, learned Government Advocate
appearing for the 1st respondent and Mr.K.V.Shanmuganathan,
learned Counsel for the respondents 2 to 10, 12 to 14, 17 to 20, 22,
26, 30, 32, 33 and 40.
5. At the outset, it is pertinent to mention that the appellant
is a Society constituted in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil
Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. Since the 39 private respondents,
namely, respondents 2 to 40, have been issued with Identity Cards
by the appellant Society, it appears that they were also
accommodated to carry out the work of the appellant society. The 1st
respondent, considering the fact that the appellant society is a
marketing society and the nature of the work executed by the private
respondents are loading and unloading, came to the conclusion that
without the services of the private respondents, the appellant society
cannot function even for a single date. Again, the 1st respondent
Labour Inspector, the Authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial
Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status) Act of 1981 came to
a vital aspect that the wages were also paid on piece rate basis by
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.No.1460 of 2013
the appellant society to the private respondents for which the
supervisory functions were also carried out by the appellant society.
Therefore, whenever wage revision took place, the same was also
applied to the private respondents. On this score, finding that there
was a contract and payment of salary made to all the 39 private
workers accepting that all the 39 private respondents have been
working continuously and they were also issued with Identity Cards
by the appellant Society, the Labour Court, the 1st respondent herein
has rightly come to the conclusion that there was a relationship of
employer and employee or master and servant between the appellant
and the private respondents herein. When the findings given by the
1st respondent speaks voluminous evidence that the 39 private
respondents were continuously working, managed and paid by the
appellant society, the appellant had at no point of time either before
the 1st respondent, namely, the authority under the conferment of
Permanent Status Act, 1981 or the learned Single Judge pleaded that
they did not work for 240 days continuously within a period of 12
calendar months. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has also
rightly come to the conclusion that the findings given by the 1st
respondent on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence that
the 39 private respondents are employees of the appellant society
cannot be triggered with.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.No.1460 of 2013
6. We are also not able to find any infirmity or illegality in
the impugned order of the learned Single Judge of this Court,
confirming the order of the Labour Court, an Authority under the
Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent
Status) Act of 1981 holding that all the 39 private respondents were
issued with Identity Cards by the appellant to extract the loading and
unloading work of the appellant society. Moreover, as there was no
any contention placed before the authority or the learned Single
Judge that the 39 private respondents have not rendering 240 days of
continuous service, we are unable to find any justification to interfere
with the impugned order.
7. In the result, the Writ Appeal fails and the same is
accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.
(T.R.J.,) (V.S.G.J.,)
26.07.2021
tsi
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.No.1460 of 2013
To
The Labour Inspector,
Authority under Tamil Nadu
Industrial Establishment
(Conferment of Permanent
Status) Act of 1981,
Office of Labour Inspector,
Salem.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.No.1460 of 2013
T.RAJA, J.
and
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
tsi
W.A.No.1460/2013
26.07.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
