Madras High Court
M/S.Rambal Limited vs The Inspector Of Factories on 26 February, 2025
Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Bench: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
W .P.No.25005 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Orders reserved on : 28.01.2025
Orders pronounced on : 26.02.2025
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.P.No.25005 of 2012
M/s.Rambal Limited,
Rep. by its Director (Operations),
No.20, Corporation Road,
Seevaram, Chennai - 600 096. .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The Inspector of Factories,
Fifth Circle, Inspectorate of Factories,
Bharath Kumar Bhavan,
617, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 006.
2. Engineering Electronics and General
Workers Union,
(Rambal Workers Union) rep. by its
General Secretary,
VPC House, Plot No.291, First Street,
Burma Colony, Perungudi, Chennai - 600 096. .. Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/34
W .P.No.25005 of 2012
praying for a Writ of Certiorari after calling for the records relating to the
order No.A/1133/2011, dated 14.06.2012 issued by the 1st respondent and
quash the same as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, award costs.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.K.Chandrasekkar
For Respondents : Mr.K.Surendran,
Additional Government Pleader,
for R1
: Mr.K.K.Ramsiddhartha,
for M/s.Row & Reddy, for R2
ORDER
This Writ Petition challenges the award of the first respondent, the
Inspector of Factories, Fifth Circle, Chennai, made vide order in
A/1133/2011, dated 14.06.2012. The order conferred permanent status on
22 workmen from the date of entry into service as mentioned in the
Employment State Insurance identity cards, which are expressly mentioned
in Column No.9 to the Annexure of the impugned order. The aggrieved
management filed the present Writ Petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. The management is engaged in manufacturing auto components for
two-wheelers and four-wheelers. Until 2011, it had an apprenticeship
scheme, but, due to losses effective from 02.07.2011, the training program
was discontinued. On 28.06.2011, in response to an objection from the trade
union, Rambal Workers Union, the first respondent issued a notice to the
management. This notice was received on 04.07.2011 for a hearing
scheduled on 06.07.2011. No documents were provided to the management.
On 18.07.2011, a copy of the petition dated 15.02.2011 was submitted. The
management filed its preliminary objections dated 05.08.2011 to the claim,
asserting that the training had been stopped on 02.07.2011, well before the
receipt of the notice for the hearing.
3. The management contends that the union cannot support the
trainees' cause and that copies of the petitions filed by the trainees were not
provided to the management. On August 18, 2011, the second respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
union filed a statement opposing the management's position. On September
2, 2011, the management submitted a reply. Subsequently, the first
respondent issued notices of hearing on September 19, 2011, and December
8, 2011. Again, on December 7, 2011, the management submitted a detailed
response to the first respondent, questioning the union's right to raise the
claim. The hearing was scheduled for December 21, 2011, but was
adjourned to January 20, 2012, and then further postponed to February 8,
2012, without providing copies. Meanwhile, the first respondent visited the
factory on January 31, 2012, for an inspection. The first respondent raised
several queries and took copies of more than ten documents from the
factory. Until February 5, 2012, the management was unable to meet with
him.
4. When the management met him on 06.02.2012, he directed them to
meet him again on 07.02.2012. On that day, he simply stated that since the
management did not meet him by 03.02.2012, he had already sent a show-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
cause notice, and the management had replied with details. He said that he
challenged the management that they ultimately must come to him wherever
they go. On 08.02.2012, the petitioner unexpectedly received a show-cause
notice dated 03.02.2012, consisting of 27 charges alleging violations of the
provisions of the Factories Act and other statutes. Allegations were also
made that on 15.02.2011, he took a mobile phone to check whether
conversations were recorded and threatened further action. Even then,
during the subsequent hearings regarding the petitioners, the copies were
never provided, and the first respondent proceeded to hold the hearings and
ultimately passed the impugned order on 14.06.2012, which was
communicated on 16.06.2012. Aggrieved by this, the management is before
this Court.
5. The management asserts that the first respondent issued orders with
malafide intention because the management did not meet with him as
directed. Furthermore, the management contends that after the first
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
respondent filed a complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Chengalpattu regarding a violation of the Permanency Act on 14.09.2011, he
should not have continued the enquiry, indicating potential bias concerning
the matter. Even on the merits of the case, the employees were only trainees
and are not entitled to permanency.
6. The Writ Petition is opposed by the first respondent through a
counter-affidavit. It states that both the trade union and the workmen
submitted petitions for the conferment of permanent status. All copies were
duly provided on 18.07.2011 and 02.09.2011, and their receipt has been
acknowledged. The inquiry was conducted properly, and after evaluating
the evidence, the contested order was issued. Regarding the inspection, it is
noted that the Joint Director - IV, Industrial Safety and Health, Chennai,
informed the petitioner factory on 16.06.2011 and issued a show-cause
notice. Since the violations were not remedied, complaints were filed with
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu. After reviewing the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
allegations, the complaints were taken on file as C.C.Nos.73, 74, 75, and 76
of 2012. Except for C.C.No.76 of 2012, which the management contests, in
all the other cases, the management pleaded guilty, was convicted, and paid
the imposed fines.
7. The orders regarding the permanency of the workers were issued
based on the grounds outlined in the order dated 14.06.2012. The
petitioner’s premises were inspected on different occasions by the
authorities, and the details are also provided in paragraph No.10 of the
counter-affidavit. It is noted that on two occasions, the Deputy Chief
Inspector of Factories, IV Division, inspected the factory on 19.12.2009 and
16.06.2011. On two occasions, the Inspector of Factories, V Circle,
inspected the premises on 22.03.2011 and 31.01.2012. The other allegations
of bias and mala fide are denied. The details of wages, concerning each of
the workers ordered to be made permanent, are also included in the counter-
affidavit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. Heard Mr.C.K.Chandrasekkar, learned Counsel for the
management, Mr.K.Surendran, learned Additional Government Pleader for
the first respondent and Mr.K.K.Ramsiddhartha, learned Counsel for the
second respondent/workmen.
9. Mr.C.K.Chandrasekkar, learned counsel for the workmen, submits
that in this case, it is evident from the conduct of the first respondent in
making an inspection and calling the management to meet with him and that
the actions were based on extraneous considerations. The first respondent
acted with malafide intentions and vindictively took action against the
management company. Secondly, by taking this Court through the
complaint filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu,
the learned counsel points out that one of the charges in the complaint is the
failure to confer permanent status on these trainees, keeping them as trainees
instead. Therefore, the first respondent prejudged the issue and concluded
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
that the workmen involved in the matter should be granted permanency.
Consequently, there was no question of the first respondent deciding the
issue, having already reached the conclusion in the capacity of Inspector of
Factories conducting an inspection of the petitioner management.
10. Subsequently, he should not have continued with the enquiry in
the petition for the conferment of permanent status and decided the issue.
Therefore, the impugned order directing the conferment of permanent status
is tainted by bias regarding the subject matter. It also involves him judging
and ratifying his own findings from the inspection. Consequently, the
impugned order cannot stand legal scrutiny as it violates the principles of
natural justice. He would argue that later, the factory closed, the workmen
were all discharged, and today, the order cannot also be enforced.
11. Per contra, Mr.K.Surendran, learned Additional Government
Pleader for the first respondent, would produce the records and submit that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the allegations of malafide made by the petitioner are totally unfounded. The
allegation of bias is also incorrect. Inspections were conducted by the
Deputy Commissioner of Factories. In fact, regarding the other charges, the
management pleaded guilty, and based on that, they were convicted and
punished with fines. Therefore, there is no question of any allegations of
bias or malafide against the first respondent. The complaint was filed
according to the allocation of work, the responsibility for filing the
complaint falls on the Inspector of Factories, V Circle. In any event, the
impugned order was not issued based on the complaint or the inspection
report; it was issued after considering the submissions made by both the
workmen and the management.
12. Mr.K.K.Ramsiddhartha, learned Counsel for the second
respondent/workmen, submits that the objections raised by the petitioner
regarding the trade union's ability to espouse the cause are erroneous. The
trade union can certainly advocate for the workmen. Furthermore, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
workmen have also filed individual petitions. Regarding the manner in
which the management has categorized each and every workman as a
trainee, he contends that the management's actions constitute a wholesale
fraud on labour welfare legislation.
13. It can be observed from the various convictions issued by the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate that the current management has violated
every aspect of the labour welfare legislation. The workers were initially
engaged, and after being enrolled as regular employees, their E.S.I.
contributions were deducted for a period before they were labelled as
trainees. Demonstrating case by case for each worker, the learned Counsel
argues that the management's claims, in this instance, represent widespread
unfair practices and are egregious. For example, it is submitted that an
employee, K.Prabhu, began service on 21.05.2000. The E.S.I Corporation
Identity Card, dated 10.12.2002, clearly states the employment date.
Despite this, in 2006, the management issued an order treating him as a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Trainee.
14. It is mentioned in the said order that they referred to the training
letter dated 01.11.2005. It is advised that the employees' training period is
extended up to 30.11.2006. Thus, their case is that an employee who
entered service in the year 2000 was suddenly classified as a trainee in the
year 2005, and the training was extended up to 31.11.2006. Further orders
were issued thereafter, stating that the employees' training period was
extended for an additional year. Suddenly, on 01.08.2009, it was declared
that the employee, upon successful completion of his training period, would
progress to probation as 'Operator Trainee' and the employee would be on
probation for one year starting from 01.08.2009. On 08.09.2010, another
letter was sent indicating that the probation period was extended up to
31.03.2011. On 30.03.2011, the probation period was again extended up to
31.03.2012. It can be observed that this is the same case for each employee.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
15. After extracting work for more than five years, the management
suddenly chose to designate them as trainees. After continuing them as
trainees for five years, the management suddenly put them on probation.
The probation was being extended, and under these circumstances, petitions
were filed and rightly allowed by the first respondent.
16. The learned Counsel would also rely upon the following
judgments:-
S.No. CITATION CAUSE TITLE
1 Order, dated 05.11.1997 of Mamundiraj N. and Ors. and
the Madras High Court in Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.,
W.A.Nos.312 & 313/1995 Trichy and Anr.
2 2003 (3) LLN 834 Trambak Rubber Industries, Ltd.
and Nashik Workers Union and
Ors.
3 2004 (3) LLN 598 Superintending Engineer, Vellore
Electricity Distribution Circle,
Vellore, and Ors. and Inspector of
Labour, Perambalur and Ors.
4 Order, dated 28.06.2010 of The Divisional Manager, Ryan Tea
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the Madras High Court in Division, The Tamil Nadu Tea
W.P.No.209/2006 Plantation Corporation Limited,
Valparai Vs. The Inspector of
Plantations, Valparai and Anr.
5 (2006) 8 SCC 647 Punjab National Bank and Ors. Vs.
Manjeet Singh and Anr.
6 (1996) 4 SCC 104 Election Commissioner of India
and Anr. Vs. Dr.Subramaniam
Swamy and Anr.
17. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and
perused the material records of the case.
18. Firstly, the petitioner contends in this case that there was no
proper inquiry by the first respondent. The individual workmen did not file
any statements, and even if they had, the copies were not provided. The
records show that the petitions were originally filed by the union on
15.02.2011, and copies of these petitions were served on the petitioner
management representative, Nagaraj, at the hearing on 27.07.2011.
Similarly, the individual workmen filed petitions on 28.06.2011, and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
copies were served on the management representative, Nagaraj, on
02.09.2011. Therefore, the contention raised in the affidavit supporting the
Writ Petition, as well as by the learned Counsel for the workmen, is
factually incorrect and amounts to suppressio veri and suggestio falsi. Thus,
the management's Writ Petition is dismissed on this ground.
19. Secondly, regarding the procedure adopted during the inquiry, it
appears that copies of the petitions were duly provided to the management.
When the management was directed by the first respondent to produce the
orders related to the appointment of workmen, the extension of their
services, details regarding their date of employment, Form-25, Attendance
Register, Wage Register, Identity Cards, Wage Slips, and specifics about the
E.S.I. and P.F. deductions, the petitioner management repeatedly failed to
produce these documents. Additionally, it is evident that the workmen were
examined individually before the first respondent, and their statements were
recorded. Each document submitted by the workmen has also been labelled
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
as Document Nos. 1 to 6, etc. Although the documents were not assigned
consecutive numbers, they were numbered in relation to each workman.
The workmen presented E.S.I. Cards, management’s orders regarding their
placement as trainees and the extension of services, salary slips, and other
available documents. The first respondent also summoned records from the
E.S.I. authorities, which were taken into consideration.
20. Per contra, the management never cooperated with the inquiry. It
did not produce any documents, nor did it choose to present any evidence.
Throughout the process, the management consistently adopted an attitude of
challenging and obstructing the inquiry. As rightly contended by the learned
Counsel for the workmen, when the workmen were appointed in the year
2000, it was merely a subterfuge to evade various lawful obligations of
labour welfare legislation. They suddenly decided to classify all these
workmen as trainees suddenly in the year 2005, stating that they were under
training. There was no intention of treating them as employees. In the E.S.I
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cards and the information provided to the E.S.I Corporation, no such
designation is mentioned.
21. The provisions of the Employees Provident Fund were never
followed concerning these workmen. Furthermore, as trainees, the training
period was continuously extended until the year 2009. Suddenly, in 2009,
the management passed an order stating that upon successful completion of
the training period, the workmen would progress to probation. When the
workmen successfully completed the training period and progressed to
probation, their designation should have been 'Operator'. Even after stating
in its own order that they progressed to probation, the management still
chose to refer to them as 'Operator Trainees'. Moreover, the probation
period was continuously extended under various pretexts until the petitions
were filed. These actions by the management are ex facie illegal and
constitute unfair labour practices. As such, the workmen have demonstrated
that they were in continuous service for 480 days within two calendar years.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The E.S.I details will substantiate this claim. The impugned order also
confirms that the workmen completed 480 days. The specifics are provided
in detail in the annexure to the impugned order in tabular form. Therefore,
the inquiry was conducted thoroughly, allowing sufficient opportunity for
management. The evidence was recorded duly appreciated, and the final
orders were issued. I conclude that there is no error whatsoever in the
inquiry conducted by the fifth respondent.
22. The management’s next contention is that a particular officer
summoned the management officials to meet him for extraneous reasons,
and only because the management did not comply with his request were the
orders issued. I reject the management's allegations in this regard because,
upon reviewing the criminal complaints filed against them, the claims
detailed in the four cases must be considered. A total of 27 violations are
mentioned across the four complaints. The management has admitted to
most of these, and based on this admission, the Criminal Court convicted the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
management and imposed fines, which they paid. Therefore, when the
management presents itself as a wholesale violator of the law, its allegations
of malafide cannot be believed and are hence rejected. Furthermore, if
malafide is alleged, the concerned officer is not included in his individual
capacity in the Writ Petition, which also leads to the rejection of the
allegation of malafide.
23. Finally, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that when a
complaint was filed during the inquiry process and the management is
prosecuted for violating the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments
(Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 and the same is
on the basis of an inspection, it raises concerns of bias regarding the subject
matter, and the inquiry ought not to proceed further. Firstly, it can be seen
from the records that the allegation in the criminal complaint concerning the
violation of the Act arises from the inspection report dated 16.06.2011. This
inspection was conducted by the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, IV
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Division, who signed the inspection report and is not the first respondent
herein. Consequently, the show-cause notice dated 04.07.2011 was also
issued by that said authority, not by the authority that passed the conferment
of permanent status order.
24. The annexure categorically presents four charges, of which charge
No. 4 pertains solely to the Act. The explanation provided by the petitioner
management was directed only to that authority on 27.07.2011. In fact, the
reply statement indicates that the Company's economic situation has
worsened due to the strained industrial relations caused by the workers and
the union, leading management to discontinue the training program.
Currently, there is no training being provided to the trainees. Therefore,
Section 3(i) of the Act does not apply to the conferment of 19 workmen. The
explanation offered by management was considered by the relevant
authority, which issued an order on 22.08.2011 rejecting the explanation and
deciding to initiate prosecution. Consequently, the assertion that inspection
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
occurred and a decision was made to prosecute the first respondent is
factually incorrect, as this was done by a separate authority. The only action
taken was when the fifth respondent, designated as the authority to present
the complaint, signed and verified it before the Judicial Magistrate in
C.C.No.76 of 2012; this was solely due to the allocation of duty, and no
personal knowledge or pre-decision can be attributed to the first respondent.
Accordingly, the contention put forth by the learned Counsel cannot be
accepted in this regard. It would be apt to refer to the Judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Delhi Financial Corporation and Anr.
Vs. Rajiv Anand and Ors. and the relevant portion reads thus:
"9. ... The doctrine that “no man can be a judge in
his own cause” can be applied only to cases where the
person concerned has a personal interest or has himself
already done some act or taken a decision in the matter
concerned. Merely because an officer of a corporation is
named to be the authority, does not by itself bring into
operation the doctrine “no man can be a judge in his own
cause”. Of course, in individual cases bias may be shown
against a particular officer but in the absence of any proof
of personal bias or connection merely because officers of a
particular corporation are named as the authority does not
mean that those officers would be biased."
1 (2004) 11 SCC 625
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
25. Even so, the scheme of the Act must be considered. The Inspector
of Factories is granted powers under the Act for both inspection and issuing
orders. If the scheme of the Act is read in its entirety, it becomes clear that
it is not merely adversarial in nature; rather, the inquiry conducted by the
Inspector of Factories is inquisitorial in nature. The Inspector of Factories
can not only consider the pleadings of the parties and documents they
produce, but can also initiate inquiries and verify the Wage Register, among
other facts independently. It can be seen that after conferring permanent
status on workmen under Section 3, the Act contemplates appointment of
Inspectors under Section 4. The act also enlists the powers and functions in
Section 5 and provides the penalty in Section 6. The same are reproduced
hereunder :
"5. Power and duties of Inspectors. – Subject to
any rules made by the Government in this behalf, the
Inspector may, within the local limits for which he is
appointed,-- (a) enter at all reasonable times and with such
assistants, if any, who are persons in the service of the
Government or of any local authority as he thinks fit to
take with him, any industrial establishment; (b) make such
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
examination of the industrial establishment and of any
registers, records and notices and take on the spot or
elsewhere the evidence of such person as he may deem
necessary, for carrying out the purposes of this Act: and
(c) exercise such other powers as may be necessary for
carrying out the purpose of this Act.
6. Penalties.- (1) Every employer who contravenes
the provisions of section 3 shall be punishable with fine
which may extend to five thousand rupees and in the case
of continuing offence with a further fine which may
extend to two hundred rupees for every day after the first
during which the offence continues.
(2) Every employer who contravenes the
provisions of any rule made under section 10 shall be
punishable, for a first offence, with fine which may extend
to five hundred rupees, and for a subsequent offence, with
fine which may extend to one thousand rupees).
(3) No prosecution for an offence punishable under
the section shall be instituted except with the previous
sanction of the prescribed authority."
26. Consequently, the act of filing the complaint must be viewed in
light of the nature of the jurisdiction conferred on the Inspector of Factories.
Carrying out inspections or having the duty to prosecute in cases of violation
does not automatically disqualify them from issuing orders in favor of the
workmen. Therefore, given the nature of the jurisdiction conferred on the
Inspector of Factories, the argument put forth by the learned Counsel for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
workmen relating to bias as to the subject matter cannot be accepted in this
instance. The argument as to the bias as to the subject matter or that he is
the judge in his own cause has to be considered in this context. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in Krishnadatt Awasthy Vs. State of M.P. and Ors.
, held as follows :
"17. It must be borne in mind that when a statute
specifies the procedure for administrative decision
making, the principles of natural justice supplement but do
not substitute the statutory procedure. However, even if
the statute does not provide for the administrative
procedure, the authorities are bound to make decisions in
adherence to the principles of natural justice.
…
30. It must also be emphasized that the nemo judex
rule is subject to the rule of necessity and yields to it. In J
Mohapatra v. State of Orissa, the Court recognized that
the doctrine of necessity serves as an exception to the rule
against bias. In a matter like this, the doctrine of necessity
would also be squarely attracted since the statute explicitly
mandates the composition of the selection Committee, as
outlined in Schedule II of the Rules. The doctrine of
necessity recognizes that decision-making bodies need to
function even in circumstances where potential conflicts
of interests may arise. Here as earlier noted, the concerned
members recused and did not award any marks. It must
however be borne in mind that the doctrine of necessity is
an exception and must be applied bearing in mind the
circumstances in a given case. The size of the jurisdiction
must also be taken into account for the application of the
2 2025 SCC OnLine SC 179
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
doctrine of necessity. In this regard, Forsyth and Wade
H.W.R Wade Administrative Law (5th Edition) have
noted that in small jurisdictions, qualified persons may be
few in number and likely to be known to the parties..."
(Emphasis supplied)
27. In the matter relating to co-operative societies, where the
Registrars issue directions and also remain the adjudicating authority, in
Registrar, Cooperative Societies Vs. Dharam Chand and Ors. , the Hon’ble
Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India, held as follows :
"5. We fail to appreciate how this general
supervision of the Registrar over all cooperative societies
can be said to amount to a bias in him so as to disentitle
him to act as a Judge or arbitrator under Rule 18. It is not
the respondent's case that the Registrar is in any way
responsible for the day to day working of the Bank. All
that he is concerned with is to see that the accounts of the
Bank are audited yearly, and if necessary, to make
inspections of the Bank, if so authorised by the Act and
the Rules. That, however, does not mean that the Registrar
is bound to shield the auditors or his subordinates who
might have made the inspection of the Bank and would so
conduct the proceedings as to put the blame on the
members of the Managing Committee. Even if some
blame attaches to the auditors appointed by the Registrar
or to his subordinates who might have inspected the Bank,
their fault would be that they failed to detect the
embezzlement till the paid manager absconded. That,
3 1961 SCC OnLine SC 104
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
however, does not mean that the Registrar was at any time
a party to the fraud which resulted in the embezzlement…
."
28. In Union of India and Ors. Vs. Vipan Kumar Jain and Ors. ,
while considering the fact that the same officer happened to collect certain
details, it is held as follows:
"6.... The several sections which have been cited
by the appellants would show that the assessing officer
has, either directly or by virtue of his appointment or
authorisation by a superior authority under the Act,
been given the power of gathering information for the
purposes of assessment. The mode of gathering such
information may vary from the mere issuance of a
notice under Section 142 to the more intrusive method
of entry and search envisaged under Sections 133-A
and 133-B and seizure under Section 132. The
appellants are also correct in their submission that in the
absence of any challenge to any of these provisions, it was
not open to the High Court to have disabled the assessing
officer from discharging his statutory functions. What the
High Court has done is to read limitations into the Act and
to qualify the jurisdiction of the assessing officer and the
powers of the authorities empowered to appoint the
assessing officer as an authorised officer under Section
132 without any foundation for such conclusion being laid
in any manner whatsoever by the writ petitioners."
29. A unique aspect of the decision-making process is mentioned in
4 (2005) 9 SCC 579
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the Act. When this occurs during the inquiry, it will not, by itself, prevent
the first respondent from proceeding to issue an order in favour of the
workmen. In any case, what is being pleaded is merely an empty formality.
The management engaged in gross violations of the Act. No Court can grant
relief to the management that employs these dubious tactics to keep the
workmen from receiving the benefits conferred by various labour welfare
legislations. In this regard, it is appropriate to rely on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Bhilwara Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari
Samiti Limited Vs. Vinod Kumar Sharma dead by LRs. and Ors. and it is
relevant to extract paragraph Nos. of the said judgment, which reads as
follows:-
"2. In order to avoid their liability under various
labour statutes employers are very often resorting to
subterfuge by trying to show that their employees are, in
fact, the employees of a contractor. It is high time that this
subterfuge must come to an end.
3. Labour statutes were meant to protect the
employees/workmen because it was realised that the
employers and the employees are not on an equal
bargaining position. Hence, protection of employees was
required so that they may not be exploited. However, this
5 (2011) 15 SCC 209
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
new technique of subterfuge has been adopted by some
employers in recent years in order to deny the rights of the
workmen under various labour statutes by showing that
the workmen concerned are not their employees but are
the employees/workmen of a contractor, or that they are
merely daily-wage or short-term or casual employees
when in fact they are doing the work of regular
employees. This Court cannot countenance such practices
any more. Globalisation/liberalisation in the name of
growth cannot be at the human cost of exploitation of
workers."
(Emphasis supplied)
In view thereof, the contention of the learned Counsel for the
management stands rejected.
30. Finally, regarding the relief being sought, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India, in Tamil Nadu Medical Services Corporation Limited vs.
Tamil Nadu Medical Services Corporation Employees Welfare Union and
Anr.6 2024 SCC OnLine SC 982, determined the specific question
concerning the continuation of employees in service. This issue was
addressed in paragraph No. 28, which is reproduced below:
"28. The next question to be considered is whether
the High Court on remand, could have ignored the order of
6 2024 SCC OnLine SC 982
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the Inspector of Labour and suggested that the employees
raise an industrial dispute questioning their non-
employment. The reason for remand, as is seen from the
judgment dated 10th March, 2016, was that the High
Court had not considered that the Act would be applicable
to the parties, which were the very same as the parties
before us. In other words, the scope of remand was
limited. The order of the Inspector of Labour was passed
under the Act. Since the High Court concluded that the
Act would apply, there was no reason for it to disturb the
finding of the Inspector of Labour and, therefore, it ought
to have simply ordered that the order of Inspector of
Labour which concluded that the members of the
respondent-Union be given permanent employment, be
complied with. When an issue stands already decided and
such decision does not suffer from any vice of authority or
jurisdiction then, putting those who enjoy an order in their
favour through the wringer once more of having to re-
establish their claim, this time before the authority under
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, would be unjustified."
(Emphasis supplied)
31. Therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has now held that
merely because there is non-employment, the order or finding of the
Inspector of Labour under the Act cannot be dislodged, but it must be
complied with. It is further held that when the issue has already been
decided, the workmen should not have to re-establish their claim. Therefore,
when the workmen were ordered to be made permanent, the management's
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
response that the industry subsequently closed cannot hinder this
determination.
32. Even though it is argued before this Court that the unit is now
closed, those workmen should not be relegated back to the Labour Court
under the Industrial Disputes Act to claim further benefits, as they have not
received any closure compensation also. Furthermore, the order of the first
respondent has not been complied with. In light of this, this Court considers
the period of service put in by the workmen, which ranges between 8 to 11
years. That 14 years have also passed since the disputes arose is also noted.
Therefore, instead of relegating of the workmen to file applications under
Section 33C(2) for computation and keep them in constant litigation, this
Court believes that the workmen are entitled to justice and a remedy for the
wrong done by the management, and this remedy should not be illusive by
requiring them to approach the Tribunals multiple times. Consequently,
considering the extraordinary situation arising from the passage of 14 years
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
since the initiation of the dispute, I am of the view that rather than relegating
the workmen and the management to further litigation, this Court can itself
grant relief under certain terms. Therefore, I conclude that this is an
appropriate case to order compensation in lieu of all claims of conferment of
permanent status, continuation in service, back wages and closure
compensation.
33. Considering the number of years served by the workmen and the
amount of wages they were receiving at the time of alleging non-
employment, I believe that each of the 22 workmen is entitled to a
compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- each. This amount shall be paid by the
petitioner management within twelve weeks from the date of receipt or
production of a web copy of this order without waiting for a certified copy.
If the amount is not paid within the stated time frame, it shall thereafter be
paid with interest at 9% per annum from today.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
34. This Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as
to costs.
26.02.2025
Neutral Citation : yes
grs
To
The Inspector of Factories,
Fifth Circle, Inspectorate of Factories,
Bharath Kumar Bhavan,
617, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 006.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
grs
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
26.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
