Madras High Court
The Management vs The Presiding Officer on 15 November, 2021
W.A.(MD).Nos.2020 & 2021 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 15.11.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
W.A.(MD).Nos.2020 and 2021 of 2021
The Management,
Madurai District Co-operative Milk,
Producers' Union Ltd.,
Sathamangalam,
Madurai-625 020. .. Appellant/Petitioner in both W.As
Vs.
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court,
District Court Buildings,
Melur Road,
Madurai-625 020
2.R.Venkatachalam ... Respondents/Respondents in both W.As
Common Prayer:Writ Appeals filed under Clause XV of the Letters Patent
Act, praying this Court to set aside the order passed by this Court in
W.P(MD)Nos.2924 of 2012 and 2283 of 2016 dated 29.07.2021.
For Appellants
in both W.As : Mr.V.O.S.Kalaiselvam
For Caveator in both : No appearance
W.As
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD).Nos.2020 & 2021 of 2021
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by P.VELMURUGAN,J.)
These writ appeals have been filed by the appellant against the
common order, dated 29.07.2021 passed in W.P(MD)Nos.2924 of 2012 and
2283 of 2016.
2.The second respondent was engaged as a Casual Labour on daily
wage basis through Employment Exchange from 11.01.1993. After completion
of 480 days, the second respondent filed a petition before the Inspector of
Factories, Circle-2, Madurai, for Conferment of Permanent Status, in which, the
Inspector of Factories directed the appellant to make the second respondent
permanent from 07.05.1994. The said order was put to challenge before this
Court by the appellant along with certain other orders in respect of the persons
similarly placed to that of the second respondent. Thereafter, the second
respondent filed another writ petition for directing the appellant to implement
the orders passed by the Inspector of Factories. After hearing the arguments
advanced on either side, the Writ Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the
appellant and allowed the writ petition filed by the second respondent by
directing the appellant to confer permanent status to the employees mentioned
in various orders including the order dated 13.12.1996 passed by the Inspector
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD).Nos.2020 & 2021 of 2021
of Factories and to give consequential benefits including arrears of salary and
other allowances. The Government of Tamil Nadu by G.O(D)No.169, Animal
Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries (MP.2) Department, dated 22.06.2010 in
exercise of powers conferred under Section 170(a) of the Tamil Nadu Co-
operative Societies Act, 1983, exempted the appellant from the provisions of
Rule 149 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988 to the extent of
relaxation of age in respect of the second respondent to regularize his service as
a Casual Labour in the entry level post, as on 12.03.2021 with monetary
benefits from 28.09.2007. Though the services of the second respondent had
been regularised, he was not paid the differential amount of wages that had
fallen due from the date on which he had acquired the permanent status ie.,
from 07.05.1994, in terms of the order dated 13.12.1996, passed by the
Inspector of Factories, till the actual date of his regularization, after deducting
the wages, which were already paid to him for that period.
3.In the meanwhile, the Sangam had filed a Contempt Petition in
Cont.P(MD)No.278 of 2009, and this Court closed the said contempt petition
giving liberty. Taking advantage of the said order, the second respondent
approached the Labour Court, Madurai, in claim petitions in C.P.Nos.18 of
2002 and 140 of 2013 under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD).Nos.2020 & 2021 of 2021
1947, to compute the monetary benefits for the period from 07.05.1994 to
30.11.2001 and for the period from 01.04.2001 to 31.12.2013 respectively. By
order dated 07.04.2010 and 18.06.2015, the Labour Court allowed the claim
petitions filed by the second respondent and directed the appellant to pay a sum
of Rs.1,72,132.85/- and Rs.5,13,087/- respectively to the second respondent.
Challenging the orders of the Labour Court, the Management filed the Writ
Petitions. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions on 29.07.2021
by a common order. Aggrieved by the same, the Management/Appellant has
filed the present Writ Appeals.
4.Heard Mr.V.O.S.Kalaiselvam, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and perused the materials placed before this Court.
5.It is not in dispute that the second respondent was engaged as a
casual labour on daily wage basis from 11.01.1993. Since the second
respondent had completed 480 days of continuous service within a period of
two years, the Inspector of Factories passed an order of regularization and
directed the appellant to extent the consequential monetary and service benefits
and that order ended its finality and there was no further challenge regarding
the regularization of service of the second respondent and to give monetary
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD).Nos.2020 & 2021 of 2021
benefits. Therefore, in order to execute the order passed by the Inspector of
Factories, the second respondent has approached the Labour Court by way of
claim petitions and that were allowed and computed the monetary benefits and
also directed the appellants to pay the same. Challenging the order of the
Labour Court, the Management/appellant has filed the writ petitions.
6.Though the Management/appellant has raised many grounds in the
writ petitions, mainly three grounds have been focussed. The first ground is
that the Government of Tamil Nadu, in G.O.(D) No.169, Animal Husbandry,
Dairying and Fisheries (MP.2) Department, dated 22.06.2010, had expressly
regularised the services of the second respondent in the entry level post as on
12.03.2001 and granted monetary benefits from 28.09.2007 and in the absence
of any challenge thereto, the second respondent was not entitled to monetary
benefits for any date prior to 28.09.2007. The Writ Court has rejected the
aforesaid contention made by the appellant citing the decision of the Division
Bench of this Court, in the case of R.Lakshmi -vs- Chief Engineer
(Personnel), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, reported in (2012) 6 MLJ 480,
wherein, this Court has held that a workman, who had completed 480 days of
continuous service in a period of 24 calender month, would become
automatically a permanent employee under the employer, even if the employer
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD).Nos.2020 & 2021 of 2021
had not conferred him with the permanent status, or even if no direction was
issued by the competent authority in that regard under the Permanent Status Act
or the Rules framed thereunder.
7.The second ground raised by the appellant is that the regularization
of the second respondent in service is contrary to the dictum laid down by the
Division Bench of this Court in L.Justine -vs- Registrar of Co-operative
Societies, reported in (2002) 4 CTC 385 and that the appointment had not been
made against a sanctioned vacancy. The said issue has attained finality and age
relaxation was also given in the case of the second respondent to regularize his
service.
8.The third ground is that as if there is no evidence to prove that the
scale of pay adopted by the second respondent was based on the scale of pay
applicable to the post held by him. It is evident from the impugned orders that
the computation of the monetary benefits has been substantiated by relevant
documents, more particularly, those issued by the appellant, but no efforts have
been taken by the appellant to adduce evidence to contradict the same. In both
the writ petitions, the appellant has not shown any error in the computation of
the monetary benefits made. The payment of wages of the amount equivalent to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD).Nos.2020 & 2021 of 2021
that of a regular employee is a natural consequence that flows from the
conferment of permanent status by operation of the Permanent Status Act and it
is not the case of the appellant that the second respondent had not worked
during the relevant period. The claim of the second respondent in the
impugned proceedings is only for the differential wages.
9.All the three focus points raised by the appellants were answered by
the Writ Court by giving valid sound reasons, in which, this Court does not find
any infirmity. Since the regularization has ended its finality, there was no
further challenge regarding the regularization and the Writ Court has rightly
rejected the main grounds taken by the appellants and therefore, we find no
sound reason to interfere with the order passed in the writ petitions and
accordingly, the writ appeals fail.
10.For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Appeals stand dismissed. No
costs.
(P.S.N.J.,) (P.V.J.,)
15.11.2021
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized
for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the
order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD).Nos.2020 & 2021 of 2021
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.,
and
P.VELMURUGAN,J.,
Ns
To
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court,
District Court Buildings,
Melur Road,
Madurai-625 020.
W.A.(MD).Nos.2020 and 2021 of 2021
15.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
