Civil Supplies Corpn. Workers Union Vs. T.N.
Civil Supplies Corpn. Ltd. & Ors  Insc 182 (28 March 2001)
(civil) 1902 of
Appeal is against a Judgment dated 14th October, 1997.
this Judgment a large number of writ petitions and certain writ appeals were
disposed of. Briefly stated the facts are as follows: The Appellants are a Union, who represent the workers working in the various
Direct Purchase Centres of the 1st Respondent at Thanjavur, Tiruvarur and Nagapattinam.
The Government of Tamil Nadu brought into force the Tamil Nadu Industrial
Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 with effect
from 1.1.1982. The said Act will hereinafter be referred to as the said Act.
After the enactment of the said Act the workmen, who had been employed in the
Direct Purchase Centres of the 1st Respondent and had rendered more than 480
days of service claimed that they should be confirmed. The 1st Respondent
refused to confirm them. The Appellants then filed Writ Petition No. 5459 of
1983 for a Mandamus that the provisions of the said Act should be implemented
and employees of Direct Purchase Centres, who had rendered more than 480 days
of service, should be confirmed the status of permanent employee.
this Writ Petition the only point which was argued was whether the 1st
Respondent Corporation was governed by the provisions of the said Act. The 1st
Respondent claimed that the said Act applied only to Establishments to which
the Tamil Nadu Shop and Establishment Act, 1947 applied. The 1st Respondent
claimed that, by virtue of Section 4(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Shop and
Establishment Act, the provisions of that Act were not applicable and hence the
said Act was also not applicable to them. The High Court negatived this
contention and held that the said Act would apply to the 1st Respondent. The
High Court, by its Order dated 10th October, 1991, directed the employees to approach the Inspector of Labour for
determination of the question whether they satisfied the conditions and were
entitled to be declared as permanent workers. In this Judgment the question
whether the various Direct Purchase Centres were seasonal in nature and/or
whether the work performed in those Centres was intermittent was not decided or
dealt with even though raised in the affidavits.
to this Judgment the Inspector of Labour held an inquiry. By two reports, dated
25th March, 1995 and 31st May, 1995, it was held that the Establishment was not of a seasonal
character and the work performed by the concerned workmen was not intermittent.
It was also held that the workmen fulfilled the criteria laid down under the
Act and were therefore entitled to be made permanent. Against these reports the
1st Respondent has filed Writ Petitions which have been admitted and are
meantime the 1st Respondent terminated the services of a number of workmen. The
Union, therefore, filed a Writ Petition
claiming a blanket injunction that the workers should not be relieved from
their work. The Writ Petition, filed by the Union,
was dismissed by a Single Judge on 10th April, 1997 by holding that the Union was not entitled to have a blanket injunction of the
nature sought. It was held that the employees whose services were terminated
would take such action as is available to them in accordance with law. Against
the dismissal of the Writ Petition the Petitioners filed an Appeal. In the
meantime a number of workmen had filed Writ petitions claiming permanency. By
the impugned Judgement dated 14th October, 1997 the Appeal of the Union came to be disposed of along with the numerous
Writ Petitions filed by workmen. The Division Bench held that the questions
raised, by the Appellants herein, in that Appeal were the same which were
pending in the Writ Petition filed by the 1st Respondent against the Orders
made by the Inspector of Labour.
Division Bench held that the Union had to
await the final outcome of those Writ Petitions. The Division Bench also agreed
with the conclusion of the Single Judge that since the services of the
employees had been terminated, it was for the employees to seek their remedies
in a manner known to law. We find no infirmity with the reasoning of the
Division Bench and see no reason to interfere. Mr. Sharma submitted that even
though the Division Bench has held that the questions raised in the Appeal of
the Union were the same as those pending in the Writ Petitions filed by the 1st
Respondent, yet the Division Bench has gone on to give a finding that the
Establishment is of a seasonal character and the work is not intermittent. Mr.
Sharma submitted that these findings would now come in the way of the Union while defending the Writ Petition filed by the 1st
Respondent. He submitted that this Court should either set aside these findings
or clarify that those Writ Petitions would be decided without taking those
findings into account. We are unable to accept these submissions. Those
findings were given because the individual employees, who had filed various
other Writ Petitions, raised these contentions before the Division Bench. As
those contentions were raised the Division Bench has answered these
contentions. None of the workmen, in whose matters those findings are given,
have come up in Appeal to this Court. They have accepted those findings. It is,
therefore, not open for the Union to claim
that those findings should be set aside. In any event, as stated above, the
services of the workmen have been terminated. Therefore, even if the said Act
squarely applied and the Establishment of the 1st Respondent was not of a
seasonal character and the work was not intermittent, the remedy would now be
to file the appropriate proceedings against the order of termination. In this
view of the matter no purpose would be served by dealing with the correctness
of the finding given by the Division Bench. We, therefore, see no reason to
interfere. The Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
will, however, be no order as to costs.