Madras High Court

The Management vs C.Boopathy on 6 March, 2025

                                                                                 W.P. Nos. 19742 & 19746 of 2020

                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                      RESERVED ON    :                      10.02.2025
                                      PRONOUNCED ON :                       06.03.2025

                                                         CORAM:

                            THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETE

                                        W.P. Nos.19742 & 19746 of 2020
                                                      and
                                       W.M.P. Nos. 24386 & 24389 of 2020
                                               and 2485 of 2024

                     The Management,
                     Salem Co-operative Sugar Factory,
                     (Salem Co-operative Sugar Mill Limited),
                     Mohanoor – 637 015,
                     Namakkal District.                 ... Petitioner in both the petitions


                                                           Versus

                     C.Boopathy, S/o.Chinnasamy,
                     Keal Pettapalayam, Pettapalayam,
                     Mohanoor – 637 015,
                     Namakkal District.                           ... Respondent in W.P.No.19742 of
                     2020

                     Sankar S/o.Ponnusamy,
                     Puthukombai, Palayapalayam Post,
                     Namakkal District.                           ... Respondent in W.P.No.19746 of
                     2020


                     Prayer in W.P.No. 19742 of 2020:

                     To issue a Writ of Certiorari, call for the records relating to the impugned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis              ( Uploaded on: 07/03/2025 06:43:31 pm )
                     1/24
                                                                                 W.P. Nos. 19742 & 19746 of 2020

                     Award dated 29.07.2019 made in I.D.No.199 of 2014 on the file of the
                     Hon’ble Labour Court, Salem and quash the same.



                     Prayer in W.M.P. No. 24386 of 2020:


                     To grant interim stay of operation of the impugned Award dated
                     29.07.2019 passed in I.D.No. 199 of 2014 on the file of the Hon’ble
                     Labour Court, Salem pending disposal of the Writ Petition.


                     Prayer in W.P.No. 19746 of 2020:

                     To issue a Writ of Certiorari, call for the records relating to the impugned
                     Award dated 29.07.2019 made in I.D.No. 209 of 2014 on the file of the
                     Labour Court, Salem and quash the same.


                     Prayer in W.M.P. No. 24389 of 2020:


                     To grant interim stay of operation of the impugned Award dated
                     29.07.2019 passed in I.D.No.209 of 2014 on the file of the Hon’ble
                     Labour Court, Salem pending disposal of the Writ Petition.


                     Prayer in W.M.P.No. 2485 of 2024:


                     To grant Ad-interim direction directing the Respondent / Petitioner to
                     pay the petitioner / Respondent last drawn wages from the date of
                     dismissal as per section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 pending
                     disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass such further or other orders
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis              ( Uploaded on: 07/03/2025 06:43:31 pm )
                     2/24
                                                                                      W.P. Nos. 19742 & 19746 of 2020

                     as this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
                     circumstances of the case.




                     Appearance of Parties:


                                  For Petitioner     : Mr. R. Balaramesh, Advocate for
                                               Mr. R. Balaramesh &
                                                   Mr. K. Vasanthanayagan, Advocates
                                               in both cases.


                                  For Respondents : Mr. R. Rengaramanujam, Advocate for
                                                Mr. R. Rengaramanujam, Mr. T.N. Sugesh,
                                             Mr. V. Ponnuthurai &
                                                Mr. G. Sudangan Advocates in both cases.


                                              COMMON JUDGMENT

Heard.

2. The writ petitioner in both petitions is the management of a

cooperative sugar factory in Salem. These two petitions challenge the

Award issued by the Labour Court, Salem, in I.D. No. 199 of 2014 and

I.D. No. 209 of 2014, both dated 29.07.2019. Through separate awards,

the Labour Court ruled that the oral termination of the workman C.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/03/2025 06:43:31 pm )

W.P. Nos. 19742 & 19746 of 2020

Boopathy on 08.12.2012 and the termination of Sankar on 12.01.2013

were illegal. Consequently, the court set aside both terminations and

directed the management to reinstate the workmen with back wages.

3. In both writ petitions, a notice of motion was issued on

23.12.2020. Although the management filed two Miscellaneous Petitions

in W.M.P. Nos. 24386 of 2020 and 24389 of 2020, seeking an interim

stay on the operation of the Award, no orders were passed. The

Respondent C. Boopathy, in W.P. No. 19742 of 2020, filed a

Miscellaneous Petition in W.M.P. No. 2485 of 2024, seeking payment of

last drawn wages under Section 17B. However, no orders have been

passed in that petition either. As a result, all three WMPs remain

pending.

4. The circumstances leading to the filing of these writ petitions are

as follows. A trade union, namely the Salem Co-operative Sugar Mills

National Workers Union, filed W.P. No. 14700 of 2008 before this

Court, seeking a direction to the management to refrain from engaging

contract labor in place of 84 workmen who had approached the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/03/2025 06:43:31 pm )

W.P. Nos. 19742 & 19746 of 2020

competent authority under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Industrial

Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status) Act, 1981 (T.N. Act

46/1981), seeking the conferment of permanent status.

5. After issuing notice to the parties, this Court disposed of the writ

petition by an order dated 01.09.2008. Upon noting that a petition was

pending before the authority under the Permanent Status Act, the Court

directed the authority to complete the inquiry and pass appropriate orders

within three months, with the management required to cooperate in the

process. After the disposal, the Court issued the following direction to

the management:

“It is made clear that after the decision is rendered by the authority under Tamil Nadu Act 46 of 1981, it is open to the 2nd respondent to act in accordance with the decision arrived at by the said authority.”

6. The competent authority, namely the Deputy Chief Inspector of

Factories, Salem, by an order dated 10.10.2011, held that the

management of the sugar factory falls within the purview of the

Permanent Status Act. It was further determined that workmen employed

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/03/2025 06:43:31 pm )

W.P. Nos. 19742 & 19746 of 2020

in the factory who complete 480 days of service within a span of 24

calendar months are entitled to permanent status. Accordingly, the

authority directed that the individuals listed in the annexure be granted

permanency. The annexure contained a list of 108 names.

7. The management filed a writ petition before this Court

challenging the order of the authority. After hearing both sides, this

Court, by an order dated 31.10.2011, dismissed the writ petition and

upheld the authority’s decision granting permanent status to the

workmen. In the judgment reported in CDJ 2011 MHC 5561, the

operative portion in paragraphs 36 and 37 states as follows:

“36. Further, in the present case, when a direction was issued by this court in W.P.No.14700 of 2008, dated 4.9.2008, this court had directed the parties to act according to the order made by the first respondent and till such time the engagement of these workmen was directed to be continued.

37. In the light of the above factual matrix and the legal precedents set out above, this court do not find any case made out for interfering with the impugned order. Hence the writ petition will stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.”

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/03/2025 06:43:31 pm )

W.P. Nos. 19742 & 19746 of 2020

8. After this Court passed its order, the management took the position

that they had published a seniority list of casual laborers (CLR) on

01.10.2012. In that list, the respondent in the first writ petition, C.

Boopathy (P.F. No. 2069), was listed at Sl. No. 211, while the respondent

in the second writ petition, P. Sankar (P.F. No. 2063), was listed at Sl.

No. 230. However, on 15.03.2013, the management issued a notice

publishing a revised seniority list. In that revised list, against the names

of C. Boopathy (P.F. No. 2069) and P. Sankar (P.F. No. 2063), the

following remark was made in Tamil:

“bjhlu;e;J gzpf;F tuhjjhy; ePf;fk; bra;ag;gLfpwhu;” This means that they had not been reporting to work continuously, and

as a result, their names were removed from the list.

9. The notice further stated that if any workman had objections, they

must submit them within seven days, failing which the list would be

finalized. Notably, the list contained 86 names, and for some individuals,

the management specified that they were not covered by the court order.

This plainly means that the names of the two contesting respondents

were indeed covered by the court’s order. Subsequently, on 21.12.2013,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/03/2025 06:43:31 pm )

W.P. Nos. 19742 & 19746 of 2020

the management published a third list, temporarily appointing 71 workers

under various categories, with those possessing specific qualifications

being assigned designated roles.

10. Upon realizing that he had not been considered for appointment

despite the court's order, the respondent, C. Boopathy, raised an

industrial dispute before the Government Labour Officer, alleging that

his services had been terminated with effect from 08.12.2012. Similarly,

the respondent, P. Sankar, filed a petition claiming that his services had

been terminated with effect from 12.01.2013. As the Conciliation Officer

was unable to mediate a resolution, he issued a failure report dated

13.03.2014. Based on this failure report, both workmen filed claim

statements before the Labour Court, Salem. Their disputes were

registered as I.D. No. 199 of 2014 and I.D. No. 209 of 2014,

respectively, and notices were issued to the petitioner management.

11. Before the Labour Court, Salem, the management filed a reply

asserting that, in compliance with the High Court’s order, a seniority list

had been published. However, since the respondent had ceased reporting

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/03/2025 06:43:31 pm )

W.P. Nos. 19742 & 19746 of 2020

for work, his name was omitted from the list. In paragraph 7 of the reply,

the management stated as follows:

“7. …khz;g[kpF brd;id cau;ePjpkd;wj;jpy; 14971- 2009 vd;w upl; kDtpd; kPjhd cj;jutpy;

kDjhuu;fSf;F bjhlu;e;J gzp tH';f ntz;Lk; vd cj;jutpl;Ls;sJ/ mjd;go kDjhuUk; gzpf;F tUtJ flikahFk;/ Mdhy; kDjhuu; bjhlu;e;J gzpf;F tuhky; Kd;dwptpgg; pdw; p gzpapypUe;J epdW ; bfhz;lJ kl;Lky;yhky; nkw;fz;l upl;kDtpd; kPjhd cj;jut[g;go 51 rp/vy;/Mu;/ bjhHpyhsu;fis mtu;fsJ fy;tp kw;Wk;

bjhHpy;El;g jFjpapd; mog;gilapy; gzp epue;juk; bra;a[k; Kd;g[ 15/03/2013k; njjpapy; mwptpg;g[ gyiffspy;

Kiwahf Kd;dwptpg;g[ bra;J mjd; gpdd ; nu bjhlu;e;J gzpg[upe;j 51 rp/vy;/Mu;/ bjhHpyhsu;fis gzp epue;juk; bra;jJ/ 51 CLR jpdf;Typj;

bjhHpyhsu;fSf;F gzp epakd cj;jut[ tH';fpa gpdd ; u; fhyk; fle;J kDjhuu; bjhHpyhsu; mYtyuplk;

jdf;F eput; hfk; gzp tH';ftpy;iy vd;W bgha;ahf ,uz;L tUl';fs; fHpj;J ,e;j tHf;fpid jhf;fy;

bra;Js;shu;/ kDjhuu; 08/12/2012 Kjy; mtnu jd;dpri ; rahf ntiyf;F tuhky; ,Ue;jjhy; mtUf;F ,uz;l tUlk; fHpj;J ntiynah gpd; rk;gsnkh nfhu cupik ,y;iy/ vdnt kDjhuu; kDit js;Sgo bra;a[khW nfl;Lf; bfhs;fpnwhk;/” A similar counter statement was filed in the case of the other workman

also.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/03/2025 06:43:31 pm )

W.P. Nos. 19742 & 19746 of 2020

12. The Labour Court, Salem, conducted separate trials for both

disputes. In I.D. No. 199 of 2014, the workman testified as PW1 and

submitted six documents, which were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. On

behalf of the management, Ravindran, the Office Manager, was

examined as RW1, and another individual, Rajendran, was examined as

RW2. Similarly, in I.D. No. 209 of 2014, the respondent, P. Sankar,

examined himself as PW1, while the same witnesses, Ravindran and

Rajendran were examined by the management.

13. During cross-examination, RW1, Ravindran, the Office Manager,

candidly admitted that he joined duty on 03.03.2016 and was not in

service at the time when the two respondents were employed or when the

counter statement was filed in the industrial dispute. He also provided a

straightforward response regarding the termination of the two

respondents. In cross-examination, he stated as follows:-

“……….kDjhuu; Casual Labour” vd;gjhy; gzpf;Fj; njitg;gLk; nghJ kl;Lk;jhd; vLj;Jf; bfhs;nthk; https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/03/2025 06:43:31 pm )

W.P. Nos. 19742 & 19746 of 2020

vd;gjhy; gzpePf;fk; vd;w nfs;tpf;nf ,lkpyi ; y/ kDjhuu; bjhlu;ghd tHf;F Fwpj;j tpgu';fs; vJt[k; vdf;F neuoahf bjupahJ vd;why; rupjhd;/ ep/rh/M/5y; kDjhuu; bjhlu;e;J gzpf;F tuhjjhy; ePf;fk; bra;ag;gLtjhf Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sJ vd;why; rup/ mjd;go kDjhuu; 15/03/2013 njjpapy; gzpePf;fk; bra;ag;gl;lhu;/ ep/rh/M/5y; kDjhuu; ve;j njjp Kjy; gzpf;F tutpyi ; y vd;gJ Fwpg;gplg;gltpyi ; y vd;why; rupjhd;/ kDjhuu; Miyg; gzpahsu;fs; vd;why; Miyapy; gzpg[upaf;FToa casual Labour kDjhuu; Casual Labour vd;gjw;F mtUf;F ve;j cj;jut[k; bfhLf;fg;gltpyi ; y/ kDjhuu; Casual Labour Mf gzpf;F mku;j;jg;gl;lhu; vd;gjw;F Mtz';fs; vJt[k;

ePjpkd;wj;jpy; bra;ag;gl;Ls;sjh vd;why; ,y;iy/////////ru;f;fiu Miy bjhHpw;rhiyfspd; rl;lg;go ,af;fg;gLfpwJ vd;why; rup/ kDjhuu; gzpf;F Mg;brd;l; Mfp tUtjhf mtUf;F epiyahizfspd; fPH; Fw;wr;rhl;Lf; Fwpg;ghiz vJt[k; bfhLf;fg;gltpyi ; y vd;why; rup/ epiyahizfSf;F cl;gl;L mwpt[g;g[ bfhLj;J tprhuiz bra;J gzp ePf;fk; bra;ag;gltpyi ; y vd;why; rup/ ep/rh/M/5 cj;jut[ kDjhuUf;F mDg;glnth rhu;t[ bra;ag;glnth ,y;iy vd;why; rupjhd;/ epiyahizfs; kw;Wk; bjhHpw;rhiyfs; rl;lj;jpd; mog;gilapy; gzp bra;af;Toa bjhHpyhspf;F Tl;Lwt[ r';fr; rl;lk; bghUe;jhJ vd;why; rup///////bjhHpw;rhiyfs; Jiz jiyik Ma;thsu; bjhlu;r;rpahd 24 khj';fspy; 480 ehl;fs; bjhlu;e;J gzp bra;J Koj;Js;sjhy;

01/03/2008 Kjy; gzp epue;jpuk; bra;J ep/rh/M/7 cj;juit gpwg;gpj;Js;shu; vd;why; rup///// https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/03/2025 06:43:31 pm )

W.P. Nos. 19742 & 19746 of 2020

Mdhy; k/rh/M/4 KJepiyg; gl;oay; mwptpgg; py; kDjhuu; bgau; ,lk; bgw;Ws;sJ vd;why; rup/ kDjhuu; ep/rh/M/5 cj;jutpd; go gzpePf;fk; bra;ag;gl;l gpwF mtu; kPz;Lk; epu;thfj;jplk; vg;nghJ ntiy nfl;lhu; vd;gJ bjupa[kh vd;why; bjupahJ/ 04/01/2013y; ntiy nfl;L kDjhuu; gjpt[j; jghy; K:yk; epu;thfj;jpw;F fojk; vGjp eput; hfk; bgw;Wf; bfhz;Ls;sJ vd;why; rup/ 04/01/2013 njjpapl;l fojk; kw;Wk; xg;g[jy; ml;il k/rh/M/2 23/01/2013 ntiy nfl;L fojk; vGjp epu;thfk; bgw;Wf; bfhz;Ls;s;J vd;why; rup/ 23/01/2013 njjpapll; fojk; kw;Wk; xg;g[jy; ml;il k/rh/M/3 vd;dplk; fhl;lg;gLtJ/”

Similar evidence was adduced in I.D.No.209 of 2014.

14. The Labour Court issued two separate awards dated 29.07.2019,

allowing the claims of both respondents. In paragraph 8 of the impugned

awards, the Labour Court held as follows:

“8. Thus from the cross examination of RW1 and RW2, it is found that the Petitioner who has joined with the Respondent in the year of 2000 and worked till 2012 was terminated from service without following natural justice and further the Respondent has not given any reply to Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 which are the letters sent by the Petitioner to the Respondent for his reinstatement along with salary. Under the above facts and circumstances and

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/03/2025 06:43:31 pm )

W.P. Nos. 19742 & 19746 of 2020

cumulative analysis of the facts of this case, this court of the view the oral termination of the Petitioner on 08.12.2012 is against natural justice and is hereby set aside. Further, the Respondent is directed to reinstate the Petitioner along with back wages. No costs.”

15. The present writ petitions have been filed by the management

challenging these two awards. Although the affidavit raised contentions

that the Co-operative Societies Act is a special law and, therefore, an

industrial dispute cannot be raised under the Industrial Disputes Act,

such arguments can no longer be sustained before this Court at this stage.

Another contention put forth was that casual laborers are not entitled to

regularization, relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Uma Devi’s

case (2006 (4) SCC 1). However, in the present case, regularization was

ordered after an earlier round of litigation, and it was based on a specific

state enactment—Tamil Nadu Act 46 of 1981—which expressly provides

that a worker who completes 480 days of service within 24 calendar

months is eligible for permanency. The order of the competent authority

granting such permanency was upheld by this Court in the very same

case by judgment dated 31.10.2011. Even prior to that, this Court had

issued a direction on 04.09.2008 for compliance with the competent

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/03/2025 06:43:31 pm )

W.P. Nos. 19742 & 19746 of 2020

authority’s order. Given these binding precedents, it is now far too late

for the management to raise such contentions, which are untenable and

without legal foundation.

16. The learned counsel, in conclusion, relied on the judgment of

this Court dated 22.09.2023 in W.P. No. 20267 of 2023 and a batch of

related cases concerning the petitioner management and similarly placed

workmen who had secured awards in their favour, directing

reinstatement, continuity of service, and back wages. While disposing of

the batch of writ petitions, the learned judge, in paragraphs 21, 22, 23

and 24, issued the following directions:

“21. …………The Labour Court has elaborately dealt with the issue and had granted the benefit of reinstatement in favour of the workmen, which is based on sound and justifiable reasoning and the said finding does not require any interference at the hands of this Court. Therefore, the workmen herein are entitled to regularisation as ordered by the Labour Court.

22. Now the next issue which requires determination is with regard to the direction of the Labour Court ordering reinstatement of the workmen with continuity of service and backwages.

23. The order of the Labour Court granting reinstatement to the workmen herein from the date of their termination is just and proper and no interference is warranted with

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/03/2025 06:43:31 pm )

W.P. Nos. 19742 & 19746 of 2020

the same. However, at the same time, it should not be lost sight of that the petitioner industry is a seasonal industry, which is operable during the period when sugarcane is cultivated and available. The whole functioning of the petitioner industry is based on cultivation and monsoon.

Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that the petitioner industry is a seasonal industry and its crushing operations would only be available subject to the availability of raw materials, viz., sugarcane.

24. Keeping in mind the nature of the industry of the petitioner and it is dependent upon variable factors, which are beyond the control of the petitioner industry, this Court is of the considered view that while the workmen herein are entitled for reinstatement and regularisation of their services with continuity of service from the date of their termination, however, to meet the ends of justice to either side keeping in mind that it causes no injury to either side and at the same time it works benefit to both the parties, importing the concept of ‘No Work – No Pay’, this Court holds that the workmen would not be entitled to backwages as ordered by the Labour Court.”

The learned counsel urged this Court to adopt the reasoning set forth in

the order passed by the Single Bench concerning the same management.

17. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent workmen

referred to his counter affidavit and defended the award, asserting that it

was justified. He urged this Court not to interfere with either the findings

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/03/2025 06:43:31 pm )

W.P. Nos. 19742 & 19746 of 2020

or the relief granted by the Labour Court in the impugned awards,

emphasizing that the power under Article 226 is limited. In support of his

argument, he cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in Iswarlal Mohanlal

Thakkar v. Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited & Anr., reported in

2014 (6) SCC 434, and relied on the following passage:

“10. ……… The High Court has not applied its mind in setting aside the judgment and award of the labour court in exercise of its power of judicial review and superintendence as it is patently clear that the labour court has not committed any error of jurisdiction or passed a judgment without sufficient evidence. The impugned judgement and order of the High Court deserves to be set aside and the award and judgment of the labour court be restored.”

18. Under normal circumstances, this Court would have directed

compliance with the two impugned awards, granting the workmen

reinstatement with back wages. However, another learned judge of this

Court had previously interfered with the grant of back wages, reasoning

that a sugar mill is a seasonal industry and that workmen may not have

continuous employment throughout the year, except during the crushing

seasons. This reasoning, however, is inconsistent with the present case.

When the petitioner management earlier challenged the order of the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/03/2025 06:43:31 pm )

W.P. Nos. 19742 & 19746 of 2020

competent authority under Tamil Nadu Act 46/81 before this Court, one

of the contentions raised was that, by virtue of Section 1(3) of the Tamil

Nadu Act 46/81, the petitioner mill was excluded from the provisions of

the Permanent Status Act.

19. Section 1(3) of the Tamil Nadu Act 46/81 reads as follows:-

“It applies to every industrial establishment (not being an establishment of a seasonal character or in which work is performed only intermittently) in which not less than fifty workmen were employed on any day of the preceding twelve months. If any question arises whether an industrial establishment is of a seasonal character or whether work is performed therein only intermittently, the decision of the Government thereon shall be final:

Provided that the Government may, by notification, apply the provisions of this Act to any industrial establishment employing such number of workmen less than fifty as may be specified in the notification.”

20. Notwithstanding this exemption, this Court, in the judgment

reported in CDJ 2011 MHC 5561, pertaining to the same management,

held that the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 46/81 are applicable to a

sugar mill. It was further ruled that any worker who completes 480 days

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/03/2025 06:43:31 pm )

W.P. Nos. 19742 & 19746 of 2020

of employment within a span of 24 calendar months is entitled to be

made permanent. In paragraphs 29, 31, and 32, the Court held as follows:

“29……… in the present case, since there is no authoritative order by the Government in respect of the petitioner mill under Section 25-A or Section 25-K of the I.D. Act or under Section 1(3) of the Conferment of Permanent Status Act, the court cannot presume that the Government had gone into the issue and decided the issue in respect of the petitioner mill. The letter dated 20.7.1998 issued by the Industries Department cannot be said to be a statutory order in terms of the two enactments. In the absence of the authoritative order from a competent authority, the court cannot presume that the entire operation of the petitioner mill is of a seasonal character.

30………

31.On the contrary, the first respondent on being directed to consider the issue on merits by the order of this court in W.P.No.14700 of 2008, dated 04.09.2008 referred elsewhere, the authority clearly held that the workmen are not only working during the crushing season for maintenance and operation work, but also during off season for the plant maintenance and repair of machineries throughout the year.

Therefore, the exception relied on by the petitioner under Section 1(3) cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner management. Even the judgment relied on in Badhili Dina Cooli Thozhilalar Munnetra Sangam's case (cited supra) has no application to the case on hand.

32.But, in this context, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Workmen of Vanivilas Sugar Factory's case (cited supra) will have direct application. The Supreme Court has set aside the Government order declaring the sugar mill is of seasonal https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/03/2025 06:43:31 pm )

W.P. Nos. 19742 & 19746 of 2020

character under Section 25-K, which terminology is also borrowed under Section 1(3). In fact, the reason for appointing these workmen on non permanency basis is even explained in paragraph 6 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, which reads as follows:

“6. .Only as a stop gap arrangement to meet the needs of administration, the Management, bearing in mind the financial constrains which the industry would face on account of permanent recruitments, deemed it fit and proper that appointment could be made on a contract basis as provided under the bylaws of the sugar mills.” Hence the contention that in view of Section 1(3) workers are not entitled for the benefit cannot be accepted. The said contention is rejected”

21. It was only after this directive that the management of the mill

began implementing the order and granted permanent status to several

workmen. However, those who were left out were compelled to approach

the Labour Courts individually, leading to disputes such as the ones in

the present writ petitions. The documents submitted before the Labour

Court in these cases, particularly Ex.R4, Ex.R5, and Ex.R6, clearly

indicate that these workmen were not only engaged in the cane yard but

were also employed as semi-skilled and unskilled workers in regular

employment, depending on their qualifications. It is also important to

note that majority of the workmen had acquired skills through ITI and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/03/2025 06:43:31 pm )

W.P. Nos. 19742 & 19746 of 2020

diploma certifications, and that a sugar mill, in addition to seasonal

workers, employs regular workers as well. Thus, when the learned judge

made certain observations in the earlier case, these critical facts were not

brought to his attention.

22. Apart from the fact that these workers do not fall under the

category of seasonal workers in the traditional sense, this Court has no

discretion to interfere with the two mandamus orders previously issued.

The first was in W.P. No. 14700 of 2008, dated 04.09.2008, where Justice

Jyothimani directed the petitioner management to comply with the

decision of the competent authority under Tamil Nadu Act 46/81.

Pursuant to this, the competent authority, by an order dated 10.10.2011,

directed that 108 workers be granted permanent status with immediate

effect. That means that these workers became entitled to all relief from

the date of the competent authority’s order, i.e., 10.10.2011. That order

was subsequently upheld by this Court through an order dated

31.10.2011, reported in CDJ 2011 MHC 5561.

23. Unfortunately, the counsel representing the management failed

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/03/2025 06:43:31 pm )

W.P. Nos. 19742 & 19746 of 2020

to inform this Court that the order dated 22.09.2023 in W.P. No. 20267

of 2023 and the batch cases had been the subject of an appeal and had

been addressed by a Division Bench. This omission is particularly

concerning, given that the very same management was the appellant in

all those appeals and should have properly instructed their counsel.

24 . On discovery by this court, it is seen that the Division Bench,

upon hearing the management’s appeal in a batch of writ appeals,

including W.A. No. 2645 of 2024 and related cases, dismissed all the

appeals by a common order dated 14.11.2024, thereby affirming the

order of the learned Single Judge. Unfortunately, the workmen did not

challenge the portion of the order that denied them back wages. As a

result, the Division Bench, while upholding the Single Judge’s order,

made the following observation in paragraph 11 of its common order

dated 14.11.2024:

“11. The learned single Judge has refused back wages. That would only mean that the workmen will not be entitled to the back wages till the date of award. Once award is passed, they are entitled to reinstatement and therefore, the employer would be liable to pay wages from the date of the award and the wages shall be paid to the employees within

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/03/2025 06:43:31 pm )

W.P. Nos. 19742 & 19746 of 2020

a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

25. Although this was a case where it would have been appropriate to

disagree with the learned Single Judge's decision to deny back wages—

especially since, under normal circumstances, these two workmen would

have been entitled to them—this court nonetheless bound by duty to

follow the order of the Division Bench, which affirmed the Single

Judge’s ruling.

26. Under these circumstances, the two writ petitions lack merit and

are accordingly dismissed. Consequently, W.P. No. 19742 of 2020 and

W.P. No. 19746 of 2020 shall stand dismissed. As a result, all connected

Miscellaneous Petitions—W.M.P. Nos. 24386 of 2020, 24389 of 2020,

and 2485 of 2024—shall also stand closed. No costs. In light of the

dismissal of the writ petitions, the management is directed to reinstate the