Madras High Court
M.Sundaresan vs The Managing Director on 9 July, 2019
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 09.07.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P(MD)No.1956 of 2015
and
M.P(MD)No.1 of 2015
M.Sundaresan ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The Managing Director,
Arasu Rubber Corporation Limited,
Vadasery,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District.
2.The Divisional Manager,
Arasu Rubber Corporation Limited,
Chithar Division,
Kanyakumari District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the
order of the first respondent vide e.f.vz;.vy;.1/8228/14, dated 19.09.2014, quash
the same and consequently directing the first respondent to provide day wages to
the petitioner with effect from 15.05.1991.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.T.Perumal
For R1 & R2 : Mr.T.S.Gopalan
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
ORDER
The claim of the writ petitioner to extend the benefit of the award passed in I.D.No.79 of 1991 and I.D.No.73 of 1992 for grant of wages for one additional day, which is a holiday, is under consideration in the present writ petition.
2.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner states that the benefit of additional wages are provided in respect of 114 employees and therefore, the said benefit extended in the award passed by the Inspector of Labour is to be granted to the writ petitioner also. In other words, it is contended that the benefits granted to 114 employees to be extended to the writ petitioner.
3.Though the claim seems to be reasonable, this Court is of the considered opinion that the claim set out in the writ petition is reasonable and genuine, this Court handcuffed with the orders of the Supreme Court on the same issue.
Undoubtedly, the issue in relation to grant of additional wages for one day has already been settled by the High Court in W.P.Nos.15227 and 15228 of 1996. The order of the High Court in paragraphs 12,20 & 21 are extracted hereunder:-
“12.Mr.N.Kannadasan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co., representing the petitioner Corporation made the following submissions in assailing the two http://www.judis.nic.in Awards:-3
(a) The rest day wages paid to the filed workers including watchers, sweepers and scavengers was not a service condition between the Management and the workmen and it was a consession given erroneously by the Government.
(b)There cannot be two different service conditions in respect of the plantation workers i.e., one receiving the rest day wage and the other not receiving the rest day wage.
(c)Neither in the Plantations Labour Act nor in the Minimum Wages Act, rest day wage has been provided by the Government and therefore, the workmen cannot claim it as a matter of right.
(d)Since the benefit of rest day wages is available only to 114 workmen out of a total of 2400 workers and it creates an unrest among the other sections.
(e)Because of the continuance of the rest day wages, there is a clamour for other categories of workers to get posted as watchers.
(f)Since there is a substantial compliance by giving notice under Section 9-A of the I.D.Act, the Award in I.D.No.73 of 1992 taking a contrary view was not valid.
(g)The private estates in Kanyakumari District do not grant such benefits to their workmen.
20.It is strange for the Management to plead on behalf of the other workers who are aggrieved by the payment of rest day wages for a section of the workers, who were employed by the Government and whose services were taken over after the formation of the petitioner Corporation. Under Section 25 FFA of the I.D.Act, a workman, whose services were transferred to a new employer, is entitled to have the service conditions continued with the new employer. Further, the number of employees at the time of notice of change was given, as admittedly 114 workers and it is stated that http://www.judis.nic.in now there are only 55 belonging to this category. Conscious of this 4 fact, the learned counsel for the petitioner Corporation made alternative plea before the Tribunal which is found reflected in paragraph 7 of the reply affidavit dated 16.01.1997 filed in W.P.No. 15228 of 1996. The said averment may be usefully extracted below:-
“I was present at the time of hearing of the dispute before the first respondent. I state that counsel for the petitioner corporation argued that the change proposed in the 9A notice was fully justified and as an alternative submission it was urged that if for any reason the first respondent felt that these watchers, sweepers and scavengers have enjoyed this benefit for a certain period and whether they should be deprived of the same, the court may consider payment of some adhoc amount to the existing watchers, sweepers and scavengers....”
21.Since the category of these workmen is only a vanishing tribe, the petitioner Management need not have ventured into withdrawal of the said privilege of rest day wages at the behest of the other workmen. There is a clear distinction between the two categories of workmen and the objection now raised must have been taken note of by the Government, which is the real owner of the plantation at the time of granting such direction. The comparison with the private estates in and around Kanyakumari District has no relevance and in law, only the comparables can alone be compared. Further, the reference to Plantations Labour Act and the Notification under the Minimum Wages Act has no relevance in deciding the issue whether the workman should get wages for the rest day or not. What has been fixed in those enactments is only the statutory minimum and it does not forbid the workmen getting higher than what was fixed therein.” http://www.judis.nic.in 5
4. The said order of the High Court was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.No.19995 of 2012 on 13.08.2012. The Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the management. Accordingly, the order of the High Court, dated 09.06.2008 reached its finality and as per the orders of the High Court, the benefit of additional wages for one day was granted to 114 employees out of 2400 employees. The respondents brought to the notice of this Court that out of 114 employees, all of the employees had already been retired from service and therefore, the extension of the wage or orders of the High Court cannot be done at this length of time and it would cause additional financial burden to the company and then, 114 employees were joined in the service longback and the writ petitioner cannot be compared with the services of the employees of those 114 persons. This being the factual circumstances and further issues were already been settled, which was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The relief as such sought for in the present writ petition is for grant of additional wages cannot be considered by this Court.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Index : Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No 09.07.2019
am
http://www.judis.nic.in
6
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
am
To
1.The Managing Director,
Arasu Rubber Corporation Limited,
Vadasery,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District.
2.The Divisional Manager,
Arasu Rubber Corporation Limited,
Chithar Division,
Kanyakumari District.
W.P(MD)No.1956 of 2015
09.07.2019
http://www.judis.nic.in