Madras High Court
Tamil Nadu Salt Corporation Ltd vs G.Rajavalli on 22 December, 2008
Author: K.Chandru
Bench: K.Chandru
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 22.12.2008 CORAM The Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.CHANDRU W.P.Nos.35874 to 35878, 36085 to 36089, 38077 to 38081 and 37912 to 37915 of 2005 and W.P.M.P.Nos.38691 to 38695, 38697, 38927, 38929, 38931, 38933, 38935, 40712, 40714, 40716, 40718, 40720, 40575, 40577, 40579, 40581 of 2005 and W.V.M.P.Nos.666 to 670, 701 to 705, 716 to 720 and 712 to 715 of 2006 W.P.No.35874 of 2005: Tamil Nadu Salt Corporation Ltd., L.L.A. Building, 735, Anna Salai, 4th Floor, Chennai 2. .. Petitioner Vs. 1.G.Rajavalli 2.The Principal Labour Court, Chennai. .. Respondents Prayer in W.P.No.35874 of 2005: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in C.P.No.397 of 2000 dated 03.08.2004 and to quash the same. For petitioner .. Mr.F.B.Benjamin George in all the W.Ps For respondents .. Mr.R.Arumugam for R1 in all the W.Ps COMMON ORDER
The petitioner in all these cases is the State owned Corporation by name Tamil Nadu Salt Corporation. It is a company registered under Section 617 of the Companies Act. The petitioner Corporation aggrieved by a common order passed by the second respondent/Labour Court, Chennai dated 03.08.2004 made in C.P.Nos.379 to 408 of 2000, has filed the present writ petitions.
2.It is admitted that the first respondent in each of the case were working in the factory operated by the petitioner Corporation at Alathur (Kancheepuram District). For Alathur salt pan, they receive salt in lorries from their salt pans at Vallinokam in Ramanathapuram District. The salt was cured and made as iron fortified salt at the Alathur factory and were sent for marketing.
3.The State Government issued an order in G.O.Ms.No.264 IND (MIAI) dated 03.07.2000 directing the factory to be closed down. Accordingly, a closure notice was issued. The factory was closed with effect from 02.08.2000. Even though the factory was closed, the workmen who were employed, such as the first respondent in each of the above writ petitions, were not paid notice pay and closure compensation, as required under Section 25 FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'I.D. Act').
4.This forced the workmen to claim notice pay and closure compensation. Besides these two heads, the workmen also demanded the difference in minimum wages as fixed by the State Government vide G.O.(2D) No.15 Labour and Employment Department dated 28.03.1996. In the said Notification in Item No.11, the employments such as lifting, weighing and filling up in bags, stitching the bags and carrying it to a specified distance were also covered and the minimum wage has been fixed on piece rate basis viz., Rs.79.50p for every 100 bags per day. Besides this, the workmen were also entitled to get variable dearness allowance linked to Cost of Living Index (CLI).
5.Before the Labour Court, the petitioner Corporation in opposition to the claim petition, filed a counter statement dated 20.04.2001. The contention raised in the counter statement was that the salt industry is a 'seasonal industry' and therefore, the Tamil Nadu Act 46/81 will not apply. It is also stated that the factory at Alathur is used for production of iron fortified salt. It is not part of any salt pan and therefore, the minimum wages Notification will not apply in terms of Section 2(g) read with Section 27 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. It was further stated that since the plant had only employed less than 50 workmen, they were not eligible for three months' notice pay. It was also stated that the Corporation had offered alternative employment to them to work at Valinokkam and hence they are not eligible for any statutory compensation.
6.Before the Labour Court, on behalf of the workmen, one Saraswathy (petitioner in C.P.No.379 of 2000) was examined as P.W.1. On the side of the petitioner Corporation herein, one V.Subramanian was examined as R.W.1. The workmen have filed five documents which were marked as Exs.P1 to P5. On the side of the petitioner Corporation herein, eight documents were filed and were marked as Exs.R1 to R8.
7.The Labour Court on an analysis of the materials placed before it (both oral and documentary), came to the conclusion that the first respondent herein in each of the case were workmen in the factory of the petitioner Corporation at Alathur, even as per the admission of R.W.1. The Labour Court also held that the workmen had pre-existing right and they have been working for several years in the petitioner Corporation. Even though the workmen/first respondent in each of the case were in possession of documents in respect of their employment, they did not care to file the same before the Labour Court. Though the Labour Court held that the workmen are entitled for notice pay and closure compensation. It held that the workers have failed to prove that they were eligible for other demands such as earned leave, two sets of free chappals, two sets of towels, one pair of cap, medical allowance of Rs.1,000/- and 20% bonus. The Labour Court confined the relief only to the earned leave wages, difference in minimum wages as well as the notice pay and closure compensation in terms of section 25 FFF of the I.D. Act.
8.The writ petitions came to be admitted by this Court on 10.11.2005 and an interim order of stay was granted. When vacate stay petitions were filed by the workmen, by an order dated 21.08.2006, this Court directed the petitioner Corporation to pay 1/4th of the computed amount in favour of each workman directly by way of demand drafts. The main cases were directed to be posted for final hearing.
9.Mr.Arumugam, learned counsel representing M/s.Aiyar and Dolia for the first respondent in all the writ petitions submitted that notwithstanding the interim direction, the petitioner Corporation had not complied with the interim order passed by this Court. The writ petitions are liable to be rejected solely on this ground. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the first respondent is well founded. Once the State owned Corporation approaches this Court against orders of the Labour Court and obtains a stay order on condition, it is not open to them to disobey the orders of this Court and then wait for the final hearing of the main case. In the said circumstances, the State being a model employer, cannot obtain stay orders and act against the order of this Court. It is seen from the records that no application has been filed by the Corporation either for modifying the interim order or seeking extension of time. This highhandedness of the petitioner Corporation must be put down.
10.Even otherwise, the order of the Labour Court does not call for interference and the Labour Court has kept in mind the parameters of deciding a petition filed under section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act. The closure compensation is a statutory right available to the workmen under Chapter V A of the I.D. Act and such compensation can be granted even in a petition filed under Section 33C(1) of the I.D. Act. It is much more so under Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act, where any amount due from an employer can be computed. Likewise, the earned leave wages is part of right conferred under the Factories Act, 1948. At the maximum it can be said ordering of three months' notice pay as per Chapter V B of the I.D. Act may not be proper. Under Section 25FFF of the I.D. Act only one month notice is contemplated.
11.The attempt by the petitioner Corporation that it was a seasonal industry has no relevance in deciding either the question of closure compensation or the question of minimum wages. Under Section 2(g) of the Minimum Wages Act, it is stated that a "Scheduled Employment" means "an employment specified in the Schedule or any process or branch of work forming part of such employment". Therefore, the petitioner Corporation having salt pan at Valinokkam with a processing factory at Alathur, cannot take a plea that the factory is not covered by the Minimum Wages Act. Tamil Nadu Government had introduced employments in "salt pans" in the Schedule to Part I of Minimum Wages Act.
12.Pursuant to the addition made to the Schedule, it has also prescribed minimum rates of wages by its Notification in G.O.(2D)No.15 Labour and Employment Department dated 28.03.1996. The said Notification covers several types of work. Item No.11 relates to packing and transporting. Since the petitioner Corporation has not paid minimum wages, it is open to the workmen to seek the difference in minimum wages. The contention that such a Notification will not apply to employments outside the "salt pans" cannot be accepted. The contention that it is a seasonal work has no relevance in applying any Notification regarding minimum wages.
13.The Supreme Court in Sanjit Roy Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 1983(1) SCC 525 has held that even if the State undertakes any employment which is of a seasonal nature or with a view to provide employment during famine as an ameliorative measure even in such cases, Minimum Wages Act will apply. It was observed that fixing of minimum wages is a constitutional responsibility of the State and Article 23 of the Constitution of India prohibits the State from extracting work through forced labour. The Supreme Court had also held that denial of minimum wages would amount to forced labour. The petitioner Corporation being a State, within the meaning of Article 12, the plea of justification of denial of minimum wages to workmen cannot be accepted. The Labour Court has correctly held that the workmen are also entitled to get difference in minimum wages in terms of the State Government's Notification.
14.The Corporation also in their affidavit raised a contention that Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act does not enable the Labour Court to compute such amounts as there is a factual dispute regarding entitlement of the amounts claimed. In this context, the petitioners have relied upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in 1969 (2) LLJ 89. A reference was also made to the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Ramakrishna Ramnath Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others (1963 (2) LLJ 548) regarding the scope of Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act.
15.On the contrary, the said judgment does not help the case of the petitioner Corporation. The Supreme Court has clearly held that merely on a plea made by an employer, the Court's jurisdiction cannot be ousted. The Labour Court was competent to go into the question as to whether it was a case of retrenchment or closure. If it was held in favour of the employee, then it could compute the amount in terms of the provisions under Chapter V A of the I.D. Act. In the present case, there is no dispute with reference to the entitlement as stated already. The workmen had claimed only closure compensation. Before the Labour Court, the closure notice was filed and marked as Ex.P1. The contention that the petitioner Corporation had offered alternative employment does not defeat the workmen's right to get closure compensation. Such pleas may be relevant in cases of claim for lay-off compensation. Even while making such defence, the Act restricts the scope of an offer of alternative employment under Section 25E of the I.D. Act. It is made clear only if the offer of alternate employment is only in the same village or town or it is at a place situated within a radius of 5 kms from the establishment. In the present case, the so-called offer is at a place situated at a distance of 500 kms in Valinokkam in Ramanathapuram District.
16.The learned counsel for the petitioner Corporation also produced a letter dated 13.12.2004 allegedly written by the Commissioner of Labour, Teynampet, Chennai addressed to the Secretary, Tamil Nadu Employers Association. The said letter was in response to a query raised by the Employers Association as to whether minimum wages Notification will apply to the salt industry as a whole. The letter merely states that employments in "salt industry" was not covered in the Schedule to the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
17.Under the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, the Commissioner of Labour has no authority to interpret the provisions of the Act. But so far as the petitioner Corporation is concerned, it is a body corporate, operating salt pans as well as processing units. The activities of the various units of the petitioner Corporation has to be taken functional integrality by having a processing unit away from the salt pan, it cannot escape from paying the minimum wages.
18.Therefore, it must be held that the impugned order of the Labour Court does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. The writ petitions will stand dismissed. No costs.
19.The petitioner Corporation is a State owned Corporation and since they have been litigating for the past three years without any justification, and even to deny minimum wages and the statutory closure compensation and even did not obey the interim order of the Court, they must be mulcted with costs to each of the workmen. Since this Court has held that the workmen are eligible for one month's notice, the other two months notice pay will be taken as the costs to be paid by the petitioner to each workers.
20.In view of the dismissal of the writ petitions, this order shall be implemented within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
mmi To The Principal Labour Court, Chennai