AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vinod K. Sharma, J.—The Management, Agricultural College and Research Institute, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court, to challenge the award, dated 06.07.2007 passed by the learned Labour Court, Tuticorin.
The learned Labour Court, by way of impugned award, issued directions to the 1st Respondent to grant permanent status with all consequential benefits to the Respondents 2 to 19 with effect from the date of the award i.e. 6th July 2007.
The Petitioner, is Agricultural College and Research Institute, which is granted status of statutory University. The Respondents 2 to 19 were appointed for attending the regular farm operations, as agricultural casual labourers off and on. On competition of 480 days in 24 calender months, the Respondents workmen claimed conferment of permanent status, by invoking the provision of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to the Workmen) Act 1981, hereinafter referred to as ''Establishment Act.
The ''Industrial Establishment'' has been defined under the Establishment Act, as under:
(3)"industrialestablishment"means:
(a)a factory as defined in Clause (m) of Section 2 of the Factories Act,1948 (Central Act LXII of 1948) or any place which is deemed to be a factory under Sub-section (2) of section 85 of that Act;or
(b) a plantation as defined in clause (f) of Section 2 of the Plantations Labour Act, 1951 (Central Act LXIX of 1951); or
(c) a motor transport undertaking as defined in Clause (g) of Section 2 of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 (Central Act 27 of 1961);or
(d) a beedi industrial premises as defined in clause (i) of section 2 of the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966 (Central Act 32 of 1966);or
(e) an establishment as defined in Clause (6) of Section 2 of the Tamil Nadu Shops and EstablishmentAct,1947 (Tamil Nadu Act XXXVI of 1947);or
(f) a catering establishment as defined in clause(1) of Section 2 of the Tami lNadu Catering Establishment Act, 1958 (Tamil Nadu Act XIII of 1958);or
(g) any other establishment which the Government may, by notification, declare to be an industrial establishment for the purpose of this Act.
The learned Labour Court, on appreciation of evidence, recorded a finding that the workmen, i.e., the Respondents 2 to 19, completed 480 days in preceding 24 months, therefore, were entitled to conferment of permanent status, u/s 3(1) of the Establishment Act, which reads as under:
Conferment of permanent status to workmen:
(1) "Not with standing any thing contained in any law for the time being in force every workman who is in continuous service for a period of four hundred and eighty days in a period of twenty four calender months in an industrial establishment shall be made permanent.
The impugned award of the learned Labour Court, has been challenged by the Petitioner on the ground of jurisdiction of the learned Labour Court, to adjudicate, the reference.
The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the Establishment Act, is not applicable to the Petitioner''s University, therefore, it was not within the jurisdiction of the learned Labour Court, to enforce the provision of Section 3(1) of the Establishments Act, to confer permanent status, to the employees of the Petitioner.
In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, in the case of Ruth Soren v. Managing Committee, East I.S.S.D.A and Ors. [2001 1-L.L.J 187], wherein the Hon''ble Supreme Court, while considering the provision of Shops and Establishment Act 1953, held as under:
An ''establishment'' for the purposes of the Actmeansan establishment which carries on any business,tradeorprofessionorany workin connectionwith,or incidental or ancillary thereto. Conceptof industry,as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act,would include any business, trade undertaking, manufacture or calling of employers and includes any calling service, employment, handicraft, or industrial occupation or avocation of workmen. There is an organized activity between employers and employee to impart education. Such an activity, though may be in dustry will not be a profession, trade or business for the purposes of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, would not be one falling within the scope of establishment under the Act. Therefore, the view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court is unexceptionable. The High Court did appreciate that Unni Krishnan''s case(supra) it self made a distinction between what was stated in Bangalore water Supply & Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa (supra).
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court, in the case of Management-Agricultural Research Station, Tami lNadu Agricultural University,Velayuthapuram,Kovilpatti.v. Commissionerof Labour (Authority u/s 51 of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act 1947), Labour Welfare Board Buildings, D.M.S, Compound, Madras and another, in W.P. No. 7193 of 1988, dated 19.12.1997, wherein this Court held that the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act, 1941 were not applicable to the Petitioner''s University.
On merit, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner challenged the award, by contending, that it was not open to the learned Labour Court, to order permanent status to the Respondent Nos. 2 to 19, as the Respondents were not regularly appointed, therefore, could not be regularized or conferred permanent status.
In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Neeraj Awasthi and Others,
On consideration I find No. force in the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner.
The judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, in the case of National Textile Corporation (Maharashtra North) Limited Vs. Anant Parshuram Joshi and Another, , cannot advance the case of the Petitioner, as in this judgment, it has been held, that the learned Labour Court, has jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute, as the University is an industry and therefore, amenable to the jurisdiction of the Labour Court.
The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, is not applicable to the Respondents 2 to 19, therefore, the order passed by the learned Labour Court, is bad in law, also cannot be sustained, as definition of ''industrial establishment'' under the Establishment Act, is mere comprehensive than the definition under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act, 1947.
The definition of ''Industrial Establishment'' under the Act, would cover the Petitioner''s University, once it is held to be an industry.
The first contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, therefore, cannot be accepted.
The second contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner also deserves to be noticed to be rejected for the reason that in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Neeraj Awasthi and Others, , the question for determination was whether the person appointed by back door matter could be regularized.
The Hon''ble Supreme Court, by placing reliance in A. Umarani Vs. Registrar, Cooperative Societies and Others, , held that the employees are not entitled to regularization of service.
This judgment will not be applicable to the facts of the present case, as the Respondents 2 to 19 are seeking enforcement of statutory right, under statute i.e., Establishment Act, referred to above.
In view of the specific Act, applicable to the State of Tamil Nadu, the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court referred by the Petitioner, will have No. application.
The learned Counsel for the workmen Respondents very fairly stated that in case, the order of the learned Labour Court, is implemented without any delay, by the Petitioner University, the Respondents 2 to 19 would give-up their claims of back wages.
The offer made by the learned Counsel for the Respondents 2 to 19 is fair and equitable.
Therefore, for the reasons stated herein above, there is No. merit in the writ petition, which is ordered to be dismissed.
In view of the concession by learned Counsel for workmen, the award of the learned Labour Court, Tuticorin, is conditionally modified, that the Respondents 2 to 19 will not be entitled to back-wages, if they are conferred permanent status, with effect from the date of award of the learned Labour Court, dated 6.7.2007, within a period of two months of the receipt of certified copy of this order.
It is made clear that if the learned Labour Court, award is not implemented as modified within the stipulated period of two months, the Respondents 2 to 19 would be entitled to enforce the award including back wages. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No. costs.