Madras High Court
M.Meenakshi vs Tamil Nadu Manual Workers Welfare Board on 19 June, 2014
Author: D.Hariparanthaman
Bench: D.Hariparanthaman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 19.06.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN W.P. No.30030 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013 M.Meenakshi .. Petitioner ..vs.. 1.Tamil Nadu Manual Workers Welfare Board, Rep. by its Secretary, G133, Chinthamani Co-operative Commercial Complex, Anna Nagar East, Chennai 600 102. 2.Labour Officer (Social Security Scheme), No.24, 1st Cross Street, Seetharam Nagar, Pudhupalayam, Cuddalore-1. 3.The Commissioner of Labour, DMS Compound, Teynampet, Chennai 600 006. ...Respondents Prayer:Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the concerned records from the second respondent, quash the proceedings of the third respondent bearing W1/22093/09 dated 04.12.2009 and the order of the 2nd respondent dated 11.06.2013 bearing No. Street Vending/3209/2013 and consequently direct the respondents to pay the pension at rate of Rs.1000/- per month for the period from May 2013 as per Clause 18(1) of the Tamil Nadu Manual Workers Social Security and Welfare Scheme, 2006. For Petitioner : Mr.Balan Haridas For Respondents : Mr.I.Arockiasamy Government Advocate O R D E R
The petitioner is a registered manual worker as per the Tamilnadu Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of work) Act, 1982, shortly, the Act. Section 3 of the aforesaid Act provides for framing of a Scheme for the benefit of the manual workers covered under the Act. Accordingly, a Scheme viz., the Tamilnadu Manual Social Security and Welfare Scheme, 2006 shortly, the Scheme 2006 was framed. The salient features of the Scheme provides for various benefits to the manual workers such as education benefits, marriage benefits, maternity benefits, accident benefits, pension after 60 years, funeral expenses, etc.,
2.It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a registered manual worker. She submitted Form I as per Clause 9(2) of the Scheme 2006 and the same was registered on 18.04.2011. Clause 9(1) of the Scheme 2006 provides that any manual worker who has completed the age of 18 years but not completed 60 years, may register his/her name with the Board through the Labour Officer, Social Security Scheme of the respective District to become a member of the Scheme. Clause 9(2) of the Scheme prescribes the Form I as format of application. As per this clause, the applicant made application and it was registered on 18.04.2011 and the same is not in dispute.
3.The petitioner submitted Medical Certificate for age proof as required under Form I. Based on the said Certificate, the registration was made. As per the certificate dated 05.04.2011, issued by the Assistant Civil Surgeon, the age of the petitioner was 58 years.
4.Neither the Act nor the Scheme provides as to how the date of birth shall be fixed, if the proof of age is the Certificate of the registered medical practitioner or Ration Card or Voters I.D., since these documents normally mention the age of the person concerned. The Form I states that the following are the proofs for the age of the manual worker:
*(i) Birth certificate or (ii) School Certificate or (iii) Driving License or (iv)Ration Card or (v) Voter's Identity Card or (vi) Certificate from Registered Medical Practitioner not below the rank of Civil Surgeon of a Government Hospital in the prescribed format duly signed by the worker.
**Nominees shall be dependant Family Members.
5.On completion of 60 years, the petitioner claimed pension as per clause 18 of the Scheme. Her application was rejected by the impugned order of the second respondent dated 11.06.2013, basing on the proceedings of the third respondent dated 04.12.2009.
6.The petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash the aforesaid proceedings and for a direction to pay her pension as per the scheme. A counter affidavit was filed by the third respondent to sustain the impugned orders.
7.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
8.According to the petitioner, she completed 60 years age either on 17.04.2013, the date of registration as manual worker. Hence, she is entitled to pension of Rs.1000/- per month as per clause 18 of the Scheme 2006. Clause 18 provides for pension to a manual worker who has completed 60 years of age.
9.The application made by the petitioner under Clause 18 for pension from 18.04.2013 was rejected by the impugned order dated 11.06.2013. The second respondent passed the impugned order dated 11.06.2013, rejecting the petitioner's application on the ground that she failed to renew her registration on 17.04.2013 and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to pension. The impugned order dated 11.06.2013 is extracted hereunder:
ghh;it ?1y; fz;Ls;s c';fsJ Xa;t{jpa tpz;zg;gk; ghprPypf;fg;gl;lJ/ ghh;it 2y; fhQqk; Mizapd; go c';fSf;F 60 taJ epiwtila[k; ehs; 30/04/2013. Mdhy;. eP';fs; 17/04/2013?w;F gpwF ml;ilia g[Jg;gpf;fhjjhy; c';fsJ Xa;t{jpa tpz;zg;gk; epuhfhpf;fg;gLfpwJ/
10.According to the second respondent, clause 14(1) of the Scheme 2006 states that every manual worker shall renew his or her registration before th expiry of two years. It is the further case of the second respondent that a manual worker who fails to renew his or her registration shall cease to be a member automatically, if no renewal of registration was made within a period of two years of registration, as per clause 14(2) of the Scheme. The second respondent has produced the proceedings dated 04.12.2009 of the Commissioner of Labour as to the fixation of the date of birth, whenever the manual worker is not able to give the date of birth and only provides the details of year of the birth. As per the said proceedings dated 04.12.2009, if the registration as manual worker takes place on the first day of the month, the date of birth shall be taken as the first day of the month and if the registration takes place between the second day and the last day of the month, the last day of the month shall be taken as the date of birth. The said proceedings dated 04.12.2009 is extracted below:
W1/22093/09 bjhHpyhsh; Mizah; mYtyfk; brd;id?6. ehs; 04/12/2009 Fwpg;ghiz bghUs; mikg;grhuh thhpak;? cWg;gpdh;fs; gjpt[?gpwe;j njjp fzf;fpLjy;?rpy mwpt[iufs; tH';Fjy; ghh;it 1/,t;tYtyf Fwpg;ghiz vz; W1/12875/08. ehs; 31/10/08 2/,t;tYtyf Fwpg;ghiz vz; W1/12875/08. ehs; 25/11/09 3.muRf; foj vz;/3740122009?10. ehs; 18/11/09
ghh;it 1?y; fhQqk; Fwpg;ghizapy;. mikg;grhuh bjhHpyhshh; ey thhpaj;jpy; bjhHpyhsh;fis gjpt[ bra;a[k; nghJ mth;fspd; gpwe;j njjp. tUlk; bjhlh;ghf gj;jp 4/3?y; gpd;tUk; jpUj;jk; tH';fg;gLfpwJ/ ,j;jpUj;jk; ghh;it 3?y; fhQqk; muRf; foj ehshd 18/11/2009 Kjy; mkYf;F tUfpwJ/ 4/3/ gpwe;j njjp kw;Wk; khjk; bjhpahj bjhHpyhsp gpwe;j tUlj;ij kl;Lk; milahs ml;ilapy; Fwpg;gpl;oUe;jhy;. khjj;jpd; Kjy; njjp md;W gjpt[ bra;jpUe;jhy; mk;khjj;jpd; Kjy; njjpna gpwe;j njjpahft[k;. mk;khjj;jpy; 2?k; njjp Kjy; khjf;filrpnjjpf;Fs; gjpt[ bra;jpUg;ghuhapd; gjpt[ bra;j khjj;jpw;F mLj;j khjj;jpd; Kjy; njjpna gpwe;jnjjpahft[k; vLj;Jf; bfhs;sg;glntz;Lk;/ bjhHpyhsh; MizahUf;fhf
11.The impugned order is based on the aforesaid proceedings of the Commissioner. Since the petitioner registered her name as a manual worker on 18.04.2011, the date of birth of the petitioner was taken as 30.04.2011 as per the aforesaid proceedings dated 04.12.2009. In fact, the writ petitioner sought to challenge the proceedings dated 04.12.2009 as arbitrary. According to the petitioner, such an instruction of the Commissioner of Labour cannot have sanction of law, particularly, when the Act or the Scheme 2006 does not provide as to how to fix the date of birth of the manual worker.
12.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the date of registration is the date of birth for the person whose registration falls on first day of month, the same yardstick shall be applied in case of others who register themselves as manual worker on the other days of the month i.e., the date of birth should be taken as the date of registration of a manual worker. In that event, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the renewal of the registration would not arise as per clause 9 of the Scheme, since she completed 60 years on 17.04.2013 before two years of registration and she is entitled to pension thereafter.
13.On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate for the respondents has sought to sustain the impugned order based on the aforesaid proceedings dated 04.12.2009 of the Commissioner of Labour.
14.In my view, there is no reason to take the date of registration as the date of birth for the persons who are registered as manual worker on the first day of month but in the case of others, the last day of month. There is no rational behind such a procedure. It should have been taken as the date of registration for all the persons. But the instruction dated 04.12.2009 fixes the date of birth as the date of registration for the persons who register on the first day of month and arbitrarily fixes the last day of month for others who register on the days other than the first day of month. Obviously such a procedure is arbitrary and discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
15.At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to my notice that while the clause 14 of Scheme 2006 states that the renewal of registration shall be made within a period of two years, the renewal of registration in the case of construction workers, a grace period of 6 months is granted. Construction worker is also a manual worker. He has brought to my notice that clause 6 of the Tamil Nadu Manual Workers (construction Workers) Welfare Scheme 1994 in this regard.
16.Clause 14 of the Scheme 2006 as well as clause 6 of the Tamil Nadu Manual Workers (construction Workers) Welfare Scheme 1994 are extracted hereunder:
14.Renewal of Registration:-
(1) Every manual worker whose name has been registered under clause 9, shall renew his registration before the expiry of the period of two years specified in that clause.
(2) A registered manual worker who fails to renew his registration shall cease to be a member automatically. No specific orders on the cessation of membership need be issued under this provision.
(3) A registered manual worker whose membership ceased under sub-clause (2) may be readmitted by [the Labour Officer (social Security Scheme) of the respective district, after due verification].
(4) Notwithstanding his readmission under sub-clause (3) he shall not be eligible to claim any benefits that may become due during the period of non-renewal. 6.Renewal of Registration:- Every manual worker whose name has been registered under Clause (5) shall renew his/her initial registration or the subsequent renewal of his/her registration before the expiry of the period as specified in the Table below. If the registration is not renewed within the period stipulated in column(2) of the Table below, [the Labour Officer (Social Security Scheme) of the respective District after due verification], shall take action as is specified in column(4) and column (5) corresponding to the period specified in columns (1) and (2) of the Table.
17.I am of the view that the order dated 04.12.2009 of the Commissioner fixing the date of birth in an arbitrary manner is bad and the same is liable to be quashed. I am of the view that the date of registration can be taken as the date of birth of the manual worker uniformly for all the manual labourers, who are not able to tell the date of birth. Further more, while Clause 6 of the the Tamil Nadu Manual Workers (construction Workers) Welfare Scheme 1994 provides for grace period for renewal of registration, the same is not provided in the renewal of registration for other manual workers. Hence, I am of the view that a similar provision like clause 6 of the Tamil Nadu Manual Workers (construction Workers) Welfare Scheme 1994 shall be incorporated in clause (14) of Scheme 2006, since both the construction worker and the manual workers belong to the same category of the employees and both are unorganised and unskilled manual labourers. Both the Scheme 1994 and Scheme 2006 are framed by the Tamil Nadu Government under the Act 1982.
18. Hence, for the reasons stated above, I am inclined to quash the impugned order dated 04.12.2009 and the order dated 11.06.2013 basing on the same. While quashing those impugned orders, I am also inclined to issue a direction to the Principal Secretary to Labour and Employment Department to take suitable steps to amend clause 14 relating to the renewal of registration in Tamil nadu Manual Workers Social Security and Welfare Scheme 2006 as in the case of clause 6 of Tamil Nadu Manual Workers (construction Workers) Welfare Scheme 1994 for the purpose of renewal of registration. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary Labour and Employment Department for the aforesaid purpose. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and a direction is issued to the second respondent to pay pension from 18.04.2013 to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
19.06.2014
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
vri
D.HARIPARANTHAMAN,J.
VRI
To
1.Tamil Nadu Manual Workers Welfare Board,
Rep. by its Secretary,
G133, Chinthamani Co-operative Commercial Complex,
Anna Nagar East,
Chennai 600 102.
2.Labour Officer (Social Security Scheme),
No.24, 1st Cross Street,
Seetharam Nagar,
Pudhupalayam,
Cuddalore-1.
3.The Commissioner of Labour,
DMS Compound,
Teynampet,
Chennai 600 006.
W.P.No.30030 of 2013
19.06.2014