AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru, J.—The petitioner in all these cases is the State owned Corporation by name Tamil Nadu Salt Corporation. It is a company
registered u/s 617 of the Companies Act. The petitioner Corporation aggrieved by a common order passed by the second respondent/Labour
Court, Chennai dated 03.08.2004 made in C.P. Nos. 379 to 408 of 2000, has filed the present writ petitions.
It is admitted that the first respondent in each of the case were working in the factory operated by the petitioner Corporation at Alathur
(Kancheepuram District). For Alathur salt pan, they receive salt in lorries from their salt pans at Vallinokam in Ramanathapuram District. The salt
was cured and made as iron fortified salt at the Alathur factory and were sent for marketing.
The State Government issued an order in G.O.Ms. No. 264 IND (MIAI) dated 03.07.2000 directing the factory to be closed down.
Accordingly, a closure notice was issued. The factory was closed with effect from 02.08.2000. Even though the factory was closed, the workmen
who were employed, such as the first respondent in each of the above writ petitions, were not paid notice pay and closure compensation, as
required u/s 25FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ''I.D. Act'').
This forced the workmen to claim notice pay and closure compensation. Besides these two heads, the workmen also demanded the difference
in minimum wages as fixed by the State Government vide G.O.(2D) No. 15 Labour and Employment Department dated 28.03.1996. In the said
Notification in Item No. 11, the employments such as lifting, weighing and filling up in bags, stitching the bags and carrying it to a specified distance
were also covered and the minimum wage has been fixed on piece rate basis viz., Rs. 79.50p for every 100 bags per day. Besides this, the
workmen were also entitled to get variable dearness allowance linked to Cost of Living Index (CLI).
Before the Labour Court, the petitioner Corporation in opposition to the claim petition, filed a counter statement dated 20.04.2001. The
contention raised in the counter statement was that the salt industry is a ''seasonal industry'' and therefore, the Tamil Nadu Act 46/81 will not apply.
It is also stated that the factory at Alathur is used for production of iron fortified salt. It is not part of any salt pan and therefore, the minimum wages
Notification will not apply in terms of Section 2(g) read with Section 27 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. It was further stated that since the
plant had only employed less than 50 workmen, they were not eligible for three months'' notice pay. It was also stated that the Corporation had
offered alternative employment to them to work at Valinokkam and hence they are not eligible for any statutory compensation.
Before the Labour Court, on behalf of the workmen, one Saraswathy (petitioner in C.P. No. 379 of 2000) was examined as P.W.1. On the
side of the petitioner Corporation herein, one V. Subramanian was examined as R.W.1. The workmen have filed five documents which were
marked as Exs.P1 to P5. On the side of the petitioner Corporation herein, eight documents were filed and were marked as Exs.R1 to R8.
The Labour Court on an analysis of the materials placed before it (both oral and documentary), came to the conclusion that the first respondent
herein in each of the case were workmen in the factory of the petitioner Corporation at Alathur, even as per the admission of R.W.1. The Labour
Court also held that the workmen had pre-existing right and they have been working for several years in the petitioner Corporation. Even though
the workmen/first respondent in each of the case were in possession of documents in respect of their employment, they did not care to file the
same before the Labour Court. Though the Labour Court held that the workmen are entitled for notice pay and closure compensation. It held that
the workers have failed to prove that they were eligible for other demands such as earned leave, two sets of free chappals, two sets of towels, one
pair of cap, medical allowance of Rs. 1,000/- and 20% bonus. The Labour Court confined the relief only to the earned leave wages, difference in
minimum wages as well as the notice pay and closure compensation in terms of Section 25FFF of the I.D. Act.
The writ petitions came to be admitted by this Court on 10.11.2005 and an interim order of stay was granted. When vacate stay petitions were
filed by the workmen, by an order dated 21.08.2006, this Court directed the petitioner Corporation to pay 1/4th of the computed amount in
favour of each workman directly by way of demand drafts. The main cases were directed to be posted for final hearing.
Mr. Arumugam, learned counsel representing M/s. Aiyar and Dolia for the first respondent in all the writ petitions submitted that notwithstanding
the interim direction, the petitioner Corporation had not complied with the interim order passed by this Court. The writ petitions are liable to be
rejected solely on this ground. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the first respondent is well founded. Once the State owned
Corporation approaches this Court against orders of the Labour Court and obtains a stay order on condition, it is not open to them to disobey the
orders of this Court and then wait for the final hearing of the main case. In the said circumstances, the State being a model employer, cannot obtain
stay orders and act against the order of this Court. It is seen from the records that no application has been filed by the Corporation either for
modifying the interim order or seeking extension of time. This highhandedness of the petitioner Corporation must be put down.
Even otherwise, the order of the Labour Court does not call for interference and the Labour Court has kept in mind the parameters of deciding
a petition filed u/s 33C(2) of the I.D. Act. The closure compensation is a statutory right available to the workmen under Chapter V A of the I.D.
Act and such compensation can be granted even in a petition filed u/s 33C(1) of the I.D. Act. It is much more so u/s 33C(2) of the I.D. Act,
where any amount due from an employer can be computed. Likewise, the earned leave wages is part of right conferred under the Factories Act,
1948. At the maximum it can be said ordering of three months'' notice pay as per Chapter V B of the I.D. Act may not be proper. u/s 25FFF of
the I.D. Act only one month notice is contemplated.
The attempt by the petitioner Corporation that it was a seasonal industry has no relevance in deciding either the question of closure
compensation or the question of minimum wages. u/s 2(g) of the Minimum Wages Act, it is stated that a ""Scheduled Employment"" means ""an
employment specified in the Schedule or any process or branch of work forming part of such employment"". Therefore, the petitioner Corporation
having salt pan at Valinokkam with a processing factory at Alathur, cannot take a plea that the factory is not covered by the Minimum Wages Act.
Tamil Nadu Government had introduced employments in ""salt pans"" in the Schedule to Part I of Minimum Wages Act.
Pursuant to the addition made to the Schedule, it has also prescribed minimum rates of wages by its Notification in G.O.(2D) No. 15 Labour
and Employment Department dated 28.03.1996. The said Notification covers several types of work. Item No. 11 relates to packing and
transporting. Since the petitioner Corporation has not paid minimum wages, it is open to the workmen to seek the difference in minimum wages.
The contention that such a Notification will not apply to employments outside the ""salt pans"" cannot be accepted. The contention that it is a
seasonal work has no relevance in applying any Notification regarding minimum wages.
The Supreme Court in Sanjit Roy Vs. State of Rajasthan, has held that even if the State undertakes any employment which is of a seasonal
nature or with a view to provide employment during famine as an ameliorative measure even in such cases, Minimum Wages Act will apply. It was
observed that fixing of minimum wages is a constitutional responsibility of the State and Article 23 of the Constitution of India prohibits the State
from extracting work through forced labour. The Supreme Court had also held that denial of minimum wages would amount to forced labour. The
petitioner Corporation being a State, within the meaning of Article 12, the plea of justification of denial of minimum wages to workmen cannot be
accepted. The Labour Court has correctly held that the workmen are also entitled to get difference in minimum wages in terms of the State
Government''s Notification.
The Corporation also in their affidavit raised a contention that Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act does not enable the Labour Court to compute
such amounts as there is a factual dispute regarding entitlement of the amounts claimed. In this context, the petitioners have relied upon the
Judgment of the Supreme Court in 1969 II LLJ 89. A reference was also made to the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Ramkrishna Ramnath
and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another, regarding the scope of Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act.
On the contrary, the said judgment does not help the case of the petitioner Corporation. The Supreme Court has clearly held that merely on a
plea made by an employer, the Court''s jurisdiction cannot be ousted. The Labour Court was competent to go into the question as to whether it
was a case of retrenchment or closure. If it was held in favour of the employee, then it could compute the amount in terms of the provisions under
Chapter V A of the I.D. Act. In the present case, there is no dispute with reference to the entitlement as stated already. The workmen had claimed
only closure compensation. Before the Labour Court, the closure notice was filed and marked as Ex.P1. The contention that the petitioner
Corporation had offered alternative employment does not defeat the workmen''s right to get closure compensation. Such pleas may be relevant in
cases of claim for lay-off compensation. Even while making such defence, the Act restricts the scope of an offer of alternative employment u/s 25E
of the I.D. Act. It is made clear only if the offer of alternate employment is only in the same village or town or it is at a place situated within a radius
of 5 kms from the establishment. In the present case, the so-called offer is at a place situated at a distance of 500 kms in Valinokkam in
Ramanathapuram District.
The learned counsel for the petitioner Corporation also produced a letter dated 13.12.2004 allegedly written by the Commissioner of Labour,
Teynampet, Chennai addressed to the Secretary, Tamil Nadu Employers Association. The said letter was in response to a query raised by the
Employers Association as to whether minimum wages Notification will apply to the salt industry as a whole. The letter merely states that
employments in ""salt industry"" was not covered in the Schedule to the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
Under the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, the Commissioner of Labour has no authority to interpret the provisions of the Act. But so far
as the petitioner Corporation is concerned, it is a body corporate, operating salt pans as well as processing units. The activities of the various units
of the petitioner Corporation has to be taken functional integrality by having a processing unit away from the salt pan, it cannot escape from paying
the minimum wages.
Therefore, it must be held that the impugned order of the Labour Court does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. The writ petitions will
stand dismissed. No costs.
The petitioner Corporation is a State owned Corporation and since they have been litigating for the past three years without any justification,
and even to deny minimum wages and the statutory closure compensation and even did not obey the interim order of the Court, they must be
mulcted with costs to each of the workmen. Since this Court has held that the workmen are eligible for one month''s notice, the other two months
notice pay will be taken as the costs to be paid by the petitioner to each workers.
In view of the dismissal of the writ petitions, this order shall be implemented within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order.