Sunny Kuriakore
& Ors Vs. The State of Kerala &
Ors [1996] INSC 967 (16
August 1996)
Kirpal
B.N. (J) Kirpal B.N. (J) Verma, Jagdish Saran (J) Kirpal,J.
CITATION:
JT 1996 (7) 476 1996 SCALE (6)3
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
The
question Which arises in this appeal is whether the provisions of the
Plantations Labour Act, 1951 are applicable to the rubber estates owned by the
three appellants herein.
Briefly
stated the facts are that there was one estate called Nooracre Estate' which
was owned and managed by Ponmudi Rubbers Limited, Trivandrum. Out of this estate, 22.10.1960,
three parcels of land were sold. The first appellant purchased 10.28 acres, the
second appellant purchased 24.49 acres and the third appellant purchased 27.14
acres. It is the case of the appellants that after the said purchases, these
estates are being managed separately and have separate Rubber Board
Registrations.
The
Plantations Rubber Act, 1951 (hereinaftere referred to as 'the Principal Act')
was enacted with a view to provide for the welfare of labour and to regulate
the conditions of work in the plantations. Section 1(4) of the Principal Act
which specifies the plantations to which the Act applies, as originally
enacted, reads as under:
"It
applies in the first instance to all tea, coffee rubber and cinchona
plantations, but any State Government may, subject to the previous approval of
the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, apply it to
any other class of plantations within that State." By the Plantations Labour
(Amendment) Act, 1960, certain amendments were made in different provisions of
the Principal Act. In the present case, we are only concerned with the
amendments made in Section of the Principal Act.
The
two material amendments which were made were that the existing sub-section (4)
of Section 1 was substituted by a new sub-section (4) and a new sub-section (5)
was introduced. Sub-section (4) of Section 1 after the amendment reads as
under:
"It
applies to the following plantations, that is to say- (a) to any land used or
intended to be used for growing tea. coffee, rubber or cinchona which
admeasures 10.117 hectares or more and in which thirty or more persons are
employed or were employed on any day of the preceding twelve months;
(b) to
any land used or intended to be used for growing any other plant, which
admeasures 10.117 hectares or more and in which thirty or more persons 'are
employed 'or were employed on any day of the preceding twelve months, if, after
obtaining the approval of the Central Government, the State Government, by
notification in the Official Gazette, so directs.
Sub-section
(5) which was introduced by the Amendment Act, reads as under:
"1
(5) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazetted declare
that all or any of the provisions of this Act shall apply also to any land used
or intended to be used for growing any plant referred to in clause (a) or
clause (b) of sub-section (4), notwithstanding that - (a) it admeasures less
than 10.117 hectares,or (b) the number of persons employed therein is less than
thirty .
Provided
that no such declaration shall be made in respect of such land which
admeasured'; less than 10.117 hectares or in which less than 'thirty persons
were employed, immediately before the commencement of this Act." It appears
that the Government of Kerala by Notification dated 19.8.72, in exercise of its
power conferred by Section 1(5) of the Principal Act, declared that all the
provisions of the Principal Act shall apply to each and every component part of
any land to which the provisions of the Act were applicable on the first day of
April, 1954, the date on which the said Act came into force notwithstanding
that such component parts admeasured less than 10.117 hectares cf land or less
than 30 persons were employed in such a component part after such land is later
on sub-divided or fragmented by way of partition, sale or otherwise.
After
the issuance of the aforesaid Notification and inasmuch as the lands of the
appellants came within the purview of the said Act, notices dated 24.9.74 were
issued to the appellants requiring them to comply with the provisions of the
said Act.
The
validity of the amendment incorporating the new Section. 1(5) of the Act as
well as of the Notification dated 19.8.72 and Notices dated 24.9.74 was
challenged by the appellants by filing a Writ Petition in the High Court of Kerala.
The said Writ Petition was dismissed by the Single Judge and the Division Bench
dismissed the appeal in limine. Thereafter, leave to appeal was granted by this
Court.
The
only contention which has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellants
is that the amendment Act came into force from 21.11.1960 and, therefore, the
provisions of the said sub-sections would not apply to the appellants' lands.
The submission was that the words 'this Act' in sub-section (5) referred to the
Amendment Act, 1960 and not to the Principal Act, 1951. We find no force in
this submission.
Sub-section
(4) of Section 1 of the Principal Act as originally enacted, made the said Act
applicable to all tea, offee, rubber or cinchona plantations irrespective of
the size of the estate. It was only with the amendment of the Act in 1960 that
the Act became applicable to all such plantations if they admeasured 10.117
hectares or more or in which 30 or more persons were employed. The effect of
new sub section (4) was that the Act would not automatically apply to those
estates which did not fall within the amended provisions of Section 1(4) such
as those which admeasured less than 10.117 hectares or employed less than 30
workers were exempted. Power was, however, given to State Governments under the
newly enacted sub-section (5) of Section 1 that even those estates admeasuring
less than 10.117 hectares and employing less than 30 workers, the provisions of
the Act would be made applicable provided the State Government made such a
declaration by Notification in the official gazette.
The
proviso to sub-section (5) of Section t of the Principal Act, however,
restricted the State Government from making any such declaration in respect of
estates which admeasured less than 10.117 hectares or employed less than 30
workers immediately before the commencement of this Act".
Whereas
prior to 1950 the Act applied to all types of plantations described therein
irrespective of its size or number of workmen employed therein, by the
Amendment Act, 1960, three classes of estates were created with reference to
the applicability of the Principal Act. By virtue of Sub- section (4) of
Section 1, the Act became automatically applicable to the estates admeasuring
10.117 hectares or employing 30 or more persons. Secondly, under Section 1(5)
it could be made applicable to smaller estates provided notification to this
effect was issued by the State Government. The third category of estates to
which the Act was made applicable were those referred to in the proviso of new
sub-section (5) namely which admeasured less than 10.117 hectares or employed
less than 30 persons immediately before the commencement of the Principal Act.
It is
quite evident that with the amendment in sub- section (4) of Section 1 the Act
became applicable not to all the states irrespective of their size and the
number of persons employed but it automatically applied only to those estates
which admeasured 10.117 hectares or employed 30 or more persons provision had
to be made with a view to prevent fragmentation of the big estates so as to
avoid the applicability of the said Act. This was sought to be achieved, by
enacting sub-section (5) of Section 1 This is also evident from the statement
of Objects & Reasons accompanying the amendment, the relevant part of which
is as follows:
OBJECTS
AND REASONS
Sub-section
(5)- Sub-Section (5) is being, added in Section 1 to empower the State
Government to apply all or any of the provisions of the Act to any plantations
less than 10.117 hectares in area or employing less than 30 workers, subject to
the condition that such of these plantations as were in existence before the
commencement of the Act will not be brought within, its scope. This sub-section
thus seeks to check the fragmentation of plantations by employers into small
units and to prevent the establishment of such small units in future with a
view to bye passing the Act." The proviso to Section 1(5) was clearly
meant to save from the operation of the said Act only those estates which were
less than 10.117 hectares or in which less than 30 persons were employed.
We see
no warrant for interpreting the words "This Act" in the proviso to
Section 1(5) as meaning the Amendment Act.
Section
2 of the Amendment Act, 1960 brought about the amendments in Section 1 and
provided that sub-section (4) and (5) shall be substituted in the Principal
Act. The proviso is integral part of sub-section (5). With the insertion of
sub-section (5) in the principal Act the whole of the sub-section (5) became a
part of the Principal Act and the reference to 'this Act' can only mean the
Principal Act of 1951 and cannot, by any stretch of imagination be regarded as
meaning the Amendment Act of 1960.
Therefore,
the Kerala High Court was right in not granting any relief to the appellants as
their estates did not fall within the ambit of proviso to Section 1(5) of the
Act. The appeal is accordingly, dismissed with costs.
Back
Pages: 1 2