Madras High Court
The Management vs The Inspector Of Plantations on 30 January, 2012
Author: K.Chandru
Bench: K.Chandru
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 30.01.2012 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.No.8859 of 2009 The Management, T.P.S.Plantation, 'B' Division, by its Proprietor S.Selvaraj K.Pudur Post, Yercaud Taluk, Salem District. .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Inspector of Plantations, Yercaud, Salem District. 2.V.Latha .. Respondents W.P.No.8859 of 2009 is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.508 of 2004, dated 30.5.2007 from the file of the first respondent and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Shivakumaran For Respondents : Mr.RM.Muthukumar, GA for R-1 No appearance for R-2 - - - - ORDER
The petitioner is the management of T.P.S. Plantation, Yercaud. In this writ petition, they have come forward to challenge an order of the Inspector of Plantations, dated 30.5.2007 in granting maternity benefit to the second respondent in terms of the Maternity Benefit Act and a direction was given to pay Rs.4357.50 towards maternity benefit and medical bonus of Rs.250/-, altogether a sum of Rs.4608/- to the second respondent.
2.The writ petition was admitted on 3.11.2009 and this court declined to grant any interim order. Though the second respondent was served, she has not chosen to appear either in person or through counsel. The fact that the second respondent was working in the petitioner estate and she had delivered a child on 5.8.2005 was not denied. But, when she had claimed maternity benefit supported by the medical certificate, the estate management took up the stand that they are not covered by the Plantations Labour Act as well as the Maternity Benefit Act, since they did not engage 10 or more workers. But the authority had entertained the claim made by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.508 of 2004 and held that since a settlement under Section 12(3) was reached in respect of 18 workers agreeing to have service continuity and backwages, it is too late for the management to contend that they are engaging less than 10 workers. The settlement itself covered more than 18 workers.
3.The contention of the management was that the petitioner is the sole proprietor of the 'B' division. 'A' and 'C' divisions are not owned by him. The settlement cannot be used to hold that all the three divisions are under the single employer.
4.However this court is not inclined to accept the contentions made by the petitioner, especially when the Inspector had found as a matter of fact the estate has more than 18 workers as evidenced by the settlement.
5.Special care and assistance for motherhood is one of the basic human rights contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Provisions for maternity protection is one of the programmes which is being furthered by the ILO on a worldwide basis. In pursuance of this objection the ILO has adopted two Conventions No.3 and 103 and a recommendation No.95 concerning Maternity Protection. Of these, Convention No.3 was adopted in the very first of its constitutions. India subscribes to the principles contained in these instruments though it might not have ratified the conventions. It is one of the directive principles of State policy contained in the Constitution of India that the State should make provision for maternity relief.
6.Article 42 of the Constitution reads as follows:
42.Provision for just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief-- The State shall make provision for securing just and humane conditions of work and for maternity relief."
7.The Supreme Court vide its judgment in B. Shah v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore and others [1977 (4) SCC 384] dealt with the interpretation of the maternity benefit available to the daily wage workers and set the tone for interpreting the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 [for short, 'M.B. Act']. The following passage found in paragraph 18 of the said judgment may be usefully extracted below:
Para 18: ".... It has also to be borne in mind in this connection that in interpreting provisions of beneficial pieces of legislation like the one in hand which is intended to achieve the object of doing social justice to women workers employed in the plantations and which squarely fall within the purview of Article 42 of the Constitution, the beneficent rule of construction which would enable the woman worker not only to subsist but also to make up her dissipated energy, nurse her child, preserve her efficiency as a worker and maintain the level of her previous efficiency and output has to be adopted by the Court."
8.The Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Female Workers (Muster Roll) reported in (2000) 3 SCC 224 dealt with the scope of the M.B. Act. In paragraph 12, the Supreme Court had observed as follows:
"12.Since Article 42 specifically speaks of "just and humane conditions of work" and "maternity relief", the validity of an executive or administrative action in denying maternity benefit has to be examined on the anvil of Article 42 which, though not enforceable at law, is nevertheless available for determining the legal efficacy of the action complained of.
9.In the light of the above, the writ petition will stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
30.01.2012 Index : Yes Internet : Yes vvk To The Inspector of Plantations, Yercaud, Salem District.
K.CHANDRU, J.
vvk ORDER IN W.P.No.8859 of 2009 30.01.2012