Nafed Processed Foods (A unit of National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation India Limited) vs The Labour Inspector and Others

K. Chandru, J.—The petitioner is a Multi-State Co-operative Society. Aggrieved by the order passed by the first respondent in respect of

Labour Court in E. Nos. 336 to 339/1998, dated 16.6.1999, the present writ petition has been filed.

The writ petition was admitted on 22.3.2000. Pending writ petition, this Court granted an order of interim stay on 20.9.2000 directing the

petitioner to deposit Rs. 3 lakhs before the first respondent and on such deposit, the amount was directed to be invested in approved security.

Subsequently, when the matter came up on 4.9.2003, it was informed that the petitioner had already complied with the said condition. Though the

workman took up an application to withdraw the said amount at the rate of Rs. 75,000/- for each respondents 2 to 5, this Court did not grant the

relief, but merely allowed each of the contesting respondents to withdraw the interest periodically. By the impugned order, the first respondent has

granted the benefit of Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981, (for short

Tamil Nadu Act 46 of 1981) on the footing that respondents 2 to 5 have put in 480 days of service within the period of 24 calendar months. The

first respondent is the Inspector and entitled to decide the dispute between the parties in terms of Rule 6 framed under the Tamil Nadu Act 46 of

1981. The contentions raised before this Court are that the petitioner being a Multi-State Co-operative Society is not covered u/s 2(4) of the Tamil

Nadu Act 46 of 1981 and the workers have accepted the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. Therefore, the workers are ineligible for any relief.

With reference to the first contention, the issue is squarely covered by a judgment of this Court in V. Elayaperumal v. State Bank of India,

Asaveerankudikadu Branch reported in 2007(2) LLN 212. In that case, an identical question came up for consideration as to whether the

provisions of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, which automatically exempted the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 46 of 1981

came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court, to which I was a member (K. Chandru, J.,) and in paragraphs 12 and 13, the

Division Bench held as follows:

From a conjoint reading of Section 2(6) with Section 2(3) of the Shops Act, it is seen that the bank comes within the field of ""commercial

establishment"" included in ""the establishment"" falling under Clause (e) of Sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the Permanent Status Act. For the purpose

of Permanent Status Act, the definition of an ""establishment"" as defined in the Shops Act had alone been borrowed and not the other provisions of

the Shops Act. In such a situation, once an ""establishment"" falls within the definition of ""establishment"" under Clause (e) of Sub-section (3) of

Section 3 of the Permanent Status Act, the inevitable conclusion is that the provisions of the said Act are applicable in construing the conferment of

permanent status to any workman, who fulfills the criteria as laid down under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 thereof, notwithstanding anything

contained in any other law for the time being in force, unless and until the Government, invoking its power u/s 9 of the Permanent Status Act

exempts conditionally or unconditionally any employer or class of employers or any industrial establishments from the provisions thereof.

Therefore, once the establishment is defined in the Permanent Status Act by incorporating the definition of establishment in the Shops Act the

definition so incorporated in Permanent Status Act become part and parcel of the later Act.

The law on the subject is well settled. When an earlier Act or certain of its provisions are incorporated become part and parcel of the later Act

as if they had been bodily transposed into it. The incorporation of an earlier Act into a later Act is a legislative device adopted for the sake of

convenience in order to avoid verbatim reproduction of the provisions of the earlier Act into the later. But this must be distinguished from a

referential legislation which merely contains a reference or the citation of the provisions of an earlier statute. In a case where a statute is

incorporated, by reference, into a second statute, the repeal of the first statute by a third does not affect the second. The later Act along with the

incorporated provisions of the earlier Act constitute an independent legislation which is not modified or repealed by a modification or repeal of the

earlier Act. However, where in later Act there is a mere reference to an earlier Act, the modification, repeal or amendment of the statute that is

referred, will also have an effect on the statute in which it is referred. It is equally well settled that the question whether a former statute is merely

referred to or cited in a later statute, or whether it is wholly or partially incorporated therein, is a question of construction.

Therefore, the preliminary objection made by the petitioner society cannot be countenanced by this Court. With reference to the acceptance of

voluntary retirement, Mr. Balan Haridas, learned Counsel appearing for the workmen contended that they have accepted it without prejudice to

the outcome of the writ petition and he has also relied upon the judgment of this Court in S. Vijayalakshmi v. Tamil Nadu Water Supply and

Drainage Board reported in 2006 WLR 91. This Court is not inclined to go into the said issue, as the workmen have already moved the Labour

Court with a petition u/s 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act claiming wages on par with the permanent workers till the date of their Voluntary

Retirement Scheme.

In the light of the same, the parties will work out their right to get both wages on the basis of the outcome of the proceedings pending before the

Labour Court. Hence, the writ petition is misconceived and devoid of merits. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there will

be no order as to costs.

In the light of the writ petition being dismissed, respondents 2 to 5 are entitled to withdraw each Rs. 75,000/- together with interest if any

accrued without any reference to this Court.