Madras High Court
Ksb Pumps Limited, Narasimha Naicken ... vs The Deputy Chief Inspector Of ... on 22 July, 2002
Equivalent citations: (2003)ILLJ185MAD
Author: P.K. Misra
Bench: P.K. Misra
ORDER P.K. Misra, J.
1. Though the matter is listed for considering the question of vacating the order of stay, since the pleadings are completed and the same question is involved in the Writ Petition also, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for disposal.
2. This Writ Petition has been filed by the management, challenging the order of the first respondent, wherein, the first respondent has decided that he has got jurisdiction to deal with the application filed by the other respondents herein. The application was filed by other respondents before the first respondent under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981, hereinafter called 'the Act', seeking for permanent status. The present petitioner raised objection before the first respondent, stating that no such application is contemplated to be entertained under the Act and the first respondent does not have any quasi-judicial power to deal with such questions raised. This having been negatived by the first respondent, the present Writ Petition has been filed.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that neither in the Act nor in the Rules, there is any provision, authorising the respondent No.1 to deal with such application filed by the persons, claiming to be the workmen. He also submitted that the duty of an inspector appointed under Section 4(1) of the Act is only to inspect the records of the establishment concerned and to consider as to whether the registers have been maintained in accordance with the Act; but, he has got no power to enquire into the matter as if he is a quasi-judicial authority and thereafter decide the lis between the parties.
4. Rule 6 (4) of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Rules, 1981, hereinafter called 'the Rules' reads thus :
" Any employee who finds his name not entered in the list referred to in sub-rule (2) or finds that the entries have not been made correctly or finds that though entries regarding his service have been made correctly but he has not attested the entries in the register of workmen in Form 1 may make a representation to the Inspector concerned. The Inspector after examining the representation or after making enquiries may issue suitable directions to the employer for the rectification of the register in Form 1 or for the issue of orders conferring permanent status to the workmen concerned."
Rule 6 (4) makes it clear that any employee, who finds his name not entered in the list referred to in sub-rule (2) or finds that the entries have not been made correctly, can make a representation to the Inspector concerned. The Inspector is authorised to examine the representation and issue suitable direction to the employer for the rectification of the register in Form 1 and also to issue directions for the issue of orders conferring permanent status to the workmen concerned. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no application is contemplated to be filed by the workmen or through their representative is not sustainable. When power has been conferred on the Inspector to consider the question of passing orders for conferring permanent status to the workmen concerned, it goes without saying that any person, who seeks for getting the benefit of permanent status, can approach the Inspector. In the present case, Rule 6 (4 ) clearly envisages that a representation can be made by the employee concerned.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that there is no scope for taking any oral evidence, as the Inspector is not a quasi-judicial authority.
6. Law is now well settled that even the authorities, while dealing with an administrative matter, may be required to follow the principles of natural justice, if the facts and circumstances of the particular case so warrant. Even assuming that the Inspector is merely an administrative authority, Rule 6 (4) itself contemplates that he can make an enquiry and thereafter issue suitable direction to the employer. This is clear from the expression as contained within Rule 6 (4) to the following effect :
" .......The Inspector after examining the representation or after making enquiries, may issue suitable direction to the employer........"
Since the Inspector can make enquiry, it does not prejudice anybody, if the Inspector makes such an enquiry in the presence of both the parties and calls upon the parties to produce materials in respect of their respective contentions. In the present case, the representation has been filed before the Inspector and the Inspector called upon both the parties to furnish material even in the shape of oral evidence. I do not think the adoption of such a course by the Inspector has at all prejudiced the present petitioner, as the petitioner can avail of the opportunity before the Inspector.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has sought to refer to the provisions contained in other Acts, wherein it has been specifically contemplated regarding filing of application. I do not think such a contention is of any substance. Apart from the fact that Rule 6 (4) itself contemplates filing of a representation, even otherwise, there is no prohibition in the Act for making a representation before the authorities concerned.
8. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this Writ Petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected W.P.M.P. and W.V.M.P. are closed. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the ultimate order of the Inspector, it would be open to the petitioner to challenge the same in accordance with law before the appropriate forum.