Madras High Court
Federation Of Tamil Nadu Newsprint vs The Chairman on 22 June, 2015
Author: S.Vaidyanathan
Bench: S.Vaidyanathan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 22.06.2015
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
WRIT PETITION (MD) Nos.19476 of 2014
And 7998 and 9929 of 2015
1. Federation of Tamil Nadu Newsprint
and Papers Oppantha Thozhilalar Sangams,
Rep. by its President, Pon.Elangovan,
Ponveedu, Thillai Nagar,
S.Vellalapatti (Post),
Karur District ? 639 004. ... Petitioner in W.P.(MD)
No.19476/2014
2. Desiya Murpokku TNPL Oppantha
Thozhilalar Sangam (Regn. No.99/Karur)
Rep. by its President, Pon.Elangovan,
Ponveedu, Thillai Nagar,
S.Vellalapatti (Post),
Karur District ? 639 004. ... Petitioner in W.P.(MD)
No.7998/2015
1. TNPL Contract Thozhilalar Sangam,
(Regn. No.789/TRI) (MLF)
Rep. by its General Secretary, M.Manivasagam,
No.16, Anna Nagar, Velayuthampalayam,
Karur District-639 117.
2. TNPL Contract Thesiya Tholilalar Sangam,
(Affiliated to INTUC) Regn. No.45/Karur,
Rep. by its Secretary, P.Subramaniam,
No.32, Pugali Street, Erode Main Road,
Velayuthampalayam, Manmangalam Taluk,
Karur District.
3. TNPL Pathukappu Paniyalargal
Munnetra Sangam (Regn.No.9/KDC)
Rep. by its Vice President, S.Raman,
Palamapuram, Poolampalayam (P.O.),
Karur-639 008.
4. TNPL Dr.Ambedkar Contract Thozhilalar
Sangam (Regn. No.1106/TRI),
Rep. by its President M.Murugan,
No.5/2, Muthunagar, Chathiram Road,
Mulimangalam Post, Manmangalam Taluk,
Karur District-639 136.
5. Pugalur Kakitha Alai Oppantha Paniyalargal Tholilalar
Viduthalai Munnani (Regn. No.138/Karur),
Rep. by its Secretary, P.Arivalagan,
No.12, High School Medu, Pugalur S.F. (P.O.),
Karur District-639 113.
... Petitioners in W.P.(MD) No.9929/2015
-vs-
1. The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu State Advisory Contract Labour Board,
and the Secretary to Government,
Labour and Employment Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2. The Secretary,
Tamil Nadu State Advisory Contract Labour Board
and the Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Contract Labour),
Office of the Commissioner of Labour,
DMS Campus, Teynampet, Chennai-600 006.
3. The Director of Industrial Health and Safety,
(Chief Inspector of Factories),
Royapettah, Chennai-600 014.
4. The Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Limited,
Rep. by its Chairman / Managing Director and
the Secretary to Government,
Industries Department,
67, Mount Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 025.
5. A.Velliyangiri
6. R.Mani
7. P.Pattabiraman
8. TNPL Contractors' Association,
Rep. by its President,
R.Karthikeyan,
No.3, K.G.Complex, Kodumudi Road,
Velayuthampalayam,
Karur ... Respondents W.P.(MD) No.19476/2014
1. The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu State Advisory Contract Labour Board,
and the Secretary to Government,
Labour and Employment Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2. The Secretary,
Tamil Nadu State Advisory Contract Labour Board
and the Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Contract Labour),
Office of the Commissioner of Labour,
DMS Campus, Teynampet, Chennai-600 006.
3. The Director of Industrial Health and Safety,
(Chief Inspector of Factories),
Royapettah, Chennai-600 014.
4. The Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Limited,
Rep. by its Chairman / Managing Director and
the Secretary to Government,
Industries Department,
67, Mount Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 025.
5. The Deputy Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Limited
67, Mount Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 032.
6. The Director (Operations)
Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Limited
Kakithapuram-639 136, Karur District.
7. The Deputy General Manager (HR),
Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Limited,
Kakithapuram-639 136, Karur District.
... Respondents W.P.(MD) Nos.7998 & 9929/2015
Prayer in W.P.(MD) No.19476/2014: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus,
directing the respondents 1 to 3 to permanently revoke the Registration of
the 4th respondent-Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Paper Ltd. (TNPL) to engage
Contractor Labours at their Paper and Cement Plants at Kakithapuram, Karur
District and Mondipatti, Trichy District and other off sites and consequently
direct the respondents 4 to 7 to regularize the service of Contract
Labourers, i.e., Members of the petitioner-Federation as per the list
appended, who were in service as on the date of Sub-Committee's report i.e.,
22.03.2001 from the date of their initial engagement and grant the service,
monetary and other benefits.
Prayer in W.P.(MD) No.7998/2015: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus,
directing the 2nd respondent-Tamil Nadu State Advisory Contract Labour Board
to give a conclusive decision on the Sub-Committee's report dated 22.03.2001
and appropriate recommendation as per the Contract Labour (Regulation and
Abolition) Act, 1970 and consequently direct the 1st respondent-Government to
abolish the contract labour system in the 4th respondent ? TNPL (Paper and
Cement Industries) as per Section 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation
and Abolition) Act, 1970 and consequently, absorb the members of the
petitioner-Sangam as regular employees in the 4th respondent ? TNPL from
their date of initial engagement.
Prayer in W.P.(MD) No.9929/2015: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus,
directing the 2nd respondent ? Tamil Nadu State Advisory Contract Labour
Board to make recommendation for abolition of Contract Labour system in TNPL
based on the investigation report of the Sub-Committee dated 22.03.2001 and
as per Section 10(2) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act,
1970 and consequently, direct the 1st respondent ? Government to issue
notification for abolition of the contract labour system in the 4th
respondent - TNPL (Paper and Cement Industries) under Section 10(1) of the
Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and absorb the members
of the petitioners-Sangams and other contract labours as regular employees in
the 4th respondent ? TNPL from their date of initial engagement.
!For Petitioners : Mr.Vijaya Narayanan, Senior Counsel
For Mr.T.Sakthi Kumaran
For M/s.Victory Associates
^For R1 & R2 : Mr.R.Velmurugan
Govt. Advocate (W.P.(MD) 19476/2014)
For R3 : No Representation (W.P.(MD) 19476/2014)
For R1 to R3 : Mr.R.Velmurugan
Govt. Advocate (W.P.(MD) 7998 & 9929/15)
For R4 to R7 : Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, Senior Counsel
For Mr.K.Bhaskaran
(W.P.(MD) 19476, 7998 & 9929/15)
For R8 : Mr.M.P.Senthil (W.P.(MD) 19476/2014)
:COMMON ORDER
The petitioners-Sangams (in short ?the petitioners?) have come forward with these writ petitions, seeking following directions:
i) To direct the respondents 1 to 3 to permanently revoke the Registration of the 4th respondent-Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Paper Ltd. (TNPL) to engage Contractor Labours at their Paper and Cement Plants at Kakithapuram, Karur District and Mondipatti, Trichy District and other off sites and consequently direct the respondents 4 to 7 to regularize the service of Contract Labourers, i.e., Members of the petitioner-Federation as per the list appended, who were in service as on the date of Sub-Committee's report i.e., 22.03.2001 from the date of their initial engagement and grant the service, monetary and other benefits. +a direction to the 1st respondent to forthwith consider the application dated 29.12.2014 of the petitioner and grant endorsement for establishing additional 14 Manufacturing units / factory addresses as specified in the Application dated 29.12.2014.
ii) To direct the 2nd respondent-Tamil Nadu State Advisory Contract Labour Board to give a conclusive decision on the Sub-Committee's report dated 22.03.2001 and appropriate recommendation as per the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and consequently direct the 1st respondent-Government to abolish the contract labour system in the 4th respondent ? TNPL (Paper and Cement Industries) as per Section 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and consequently, absorb the members of the petitioner-Sangam as regular employees in the 4th respondent ? TNPL from their date of initial engagement.
iii) To direct the 2nd respondent ? Tamil Nadu State Advisory Contract Labour Board to make recommendation for abolition of Contract Labour system in TNPL based on the investigation report of the Sub-Committee dated 22.03.2001 and as per Section 10(2) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and consequently, direct the 1st respondent ? Government to issue notification for abolition of the contract labour system in the 4th respondent - TNPL (Paper and Cement Industries) under Section 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and absorb the members of the petitioners-Sangams and other contract labours as regular employees in the 4th respondent ? TNPL from their date of initial engagement.
2. Since the issue involved in all these writ petitions is one and the same, they are taken up together for final disposal vide this Common Order. By consent of the parties, the main writ petitions itself are taken up for hearing and disposal.
3. The case of the petitioners is that the members of their Sangams are employed in the perennial nature of works of Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Limited (TNPL) in the manufacturing process and incidental thereto and that they are not regularized even after more than 27 years of continuous service and kept in an archaic and primitive condition, thereby denying them livelihood with dignity. It is submitted by them that they have raised a dispute with regard to abolition of Contract Labours under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as ?the Act, 1970?). When the dispute has been pending, though a Sub-Committee in terms of Sections 4 and 5 of the Act has been constituted, no progress has taken place. In the meantime, two persons in the committee have expired and the Conciliation Officer under the Act has also retired from service in 2002, pursuant to which, the workers are languishing for the last 14 years.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that though the members of the petitioners were engaged to carry out perennial nature of works, they are kept in the same position for a decade and few of them have worked even for two decades also. While so, TNPL has recently given an advertisement to recruit new persons in the place where already contract labourers were engaged, which will amount to divesting of duties of contract labourers, employed in TNPL.
5. Though various points have been raised in the affidavit, this Court is not inclined to deal with all, as it may hurdle the adjudicatory process and also the input that is going to be supplied by the Advisory Committee. It is open to the petitioners to raise all the grounds available to them on the basis of the Sub-Committee's report to be submitted, as the matter is going to be placed before the State Government.
6. Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for TNPL has contended that these writ petitions are not maintainable. Since the petitioners have already raised industrial dispute, it is for them to adjudicate the same before the Industrial Adjudicator and take recourse in the manner known to law. When the management has decided to recruit new employees through open advertisement, the petitioners cannot try to stall the entire recruitment process.
7. When this Court posed a question to Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel to the effect that since all these workers are working for years together, can their candidatures be considered along with others, when they apply for the post based on the advertisement, taking into account the age relaxation, he has fairly submitted that if the qualifications are similar and if they fulfill all other conditions, their candidatures would be definitely considered by giving due age relaxation. However, he has contended that in case they are selected through open recruitment, they cannot claim retrospective benefit from the date of their initial appointment.
8. In reply, Mr.Vijaya Narayanan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in case of selection of the members of the Sangams, if they are permitted to join afresh, it will cause great prejudice to the parties in respect of abolition of contract labourers and from the date of issuance of notification, their case should be considered for regularization with retrospective effect as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Paradeep Phosphate Ltd. vs. Paradeep Phosphate Mazdoor Union, reported in 2014 (3) LLN 564 (SC).
9. Learned Government Advocate, appearing for the Government has stated that Committee will be constituted once in three years and a new Committee is likely to be constituted in December, 2015 and that they may be given three months' time to complete the process after its constitution.
10. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material documents available on record.
11. It is seen that the matter is pending nearly for 15 years and therefore, it is incumbent on the Government to act acutely and take a decision in terms of the provision of the Act, 1970 and they are also duty bound to have a permanent committee to deal with the dispute relating to abolition of contract labour system. Time sought by the learned Government Advocate for constitution of a Special Committee and for taking a decision thereafter cannot be granted, taking into account the issue in question. Therefore, these writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions:
i) The Special Committee has to be constituted immediately within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and after its constitution, the Special Committee is directed to forward its report to the Government within a period of one month thereafter;
ii) The State Government, namely, appropriate authority in turn is directed to take a decision in accordance with law with regard to abolition of contract labour system pertaining to the nature of work, as pleaded by the petitioners, within a period of one month from the date of receipt the Committee's report.
12. Since the notification is pertaining to the paper industry, any further notification that is going to be issued under Section 10 is with regard to the entire paper industry only. It is made clear that conciliation proceedings on the basis of the dispute may continue without prejudice to the rights of the parties with regard to the abolition of contract labour system.
13. At this juncture, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that pursuant to the dispute, there may be chances of the members of the petitioners to be disengaged from service. To the said apprehension, it is pertinent to mention here that since industrial dispute is pending before the concerned authority, the rights of the petitioners are protected in terms of Section 21 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The Bhavnagar Municipality vs. Alibhai Karimbhai and others, reported in 1977 (2) SCC 350 and Jaipur Zila Sahakari Boomi Vikas Bank Ltd vs. Ram Gopal Sharma and others, reported in (2002) 2 SCC 244.
14. In Bhavnagar Municipality vs. Alibhai Karimbhai and others (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
?Retrenchment may not, ordinarily, under all circum- stances, amount to alteration of the conditions of service. For instance, when a wage dispute is pending before a Tribu- nal and on account of the abolition of a particular depart- ment the workers therein have to be retrenched by the em- ployer, such a retrenchment cannot amount to alteration of the conditions of service. In this particular case, howev- er, the subject matter: being directly connected with the conversion of the temporary employment into permanent, tampering with the status quo ante of these workers is a clear alteration of the conditions of their service. They were entitled during the pendency of the proceeding before the Tribunal to continue as temporary employees hoping for a better dispensation in the pending adjudication. And if the appellant wanted to effect a change of their system in getting the work done through a contractor instead of by these temporary workers, it was incumbent upon the appellant to obtain prior permission of the Tribunal to change the conditions of their employment leading to retrenchment of their services. The alteration of the method of work culmi- nating in termination of the services by way of retrenchment in this ease has a direct impact on the adjudication pro- ceeding. The alteration effected in the temporary employ- ment of the respondents which was their condition of service immediately before the commencement of the proceeding before the Tribunal, is in regard to a matter connected with the pending industrial dispute.
14. The character of the temporary employment of the re- spondents being a direct issue before the Tribunal, that condition of employment, however insecure, must subsist during the pendency of the dispute before the Tribunal and cannot be altered to their prejudice by putting an end to that temporary condition. This could have been done only with the express permission of the Tribunal. It goes with- out saying that the respondents were directly concerned in the pending industri- al dispute. No one also deny that snapping of the temporary employment of the respondents is not to their prejudice......?
15. In the said case referred to above, it is clear that employees have demanded regularization under the employer. However, in this case, admittedly, industrial dispute is pending for absorption under the principal employer. As per the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, when an industrial dispute is pending, an employer cannot alter the service conditions of an employee and it is not mentioned under the I.D. Act, whether it is for valid dispute or not. One Court may hold that it is a valid dispute and another Court may hold that it is not a valid dispute. Section 33 of the I.D. Act clearly stipulates that during the pendency of any conciliation proceeding before a conciliation officer, no employer shall in regard to any matter connected with the dispute, alter, to the prejudice of the workmen concerned in such dispute, the conditions of service applicable to them immediately before the commencement of such proceeding.
16. The apprehension of the members of the petitioners that they would be disengaged, cannot be accepted in the light of the provisions of Section 33 of I.D. Act and decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhavnagar Municipality vs. Alibhai Karimbhai and others, referred to above.
In case, the petitioners are disengaged, they have to raise a dispute or make complaint under Section 33-A of the I.D. Act as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab Beverages (P) Ltd. A Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Jaipur Zila Sahakari Boomi Vikas Bank Ltd vs. Ram Gopal Sharma and others, has held that Punjab Beverages (P) Ltd. Case is bad in law and has made it very clear that if there is any violation of the provisions of Section 33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act, the employee need not approach the Court for getting an Award from the Labour Court or Tribunal, as the order of disengagement is nonest in law and he is deemed to be in service and he is entitled to all the benefits. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaipur Zila Sahakari Boomi Vikas Bank Ltd vs. Ram Gopal Sharma and others (supra) are extracted below:
?13. The proviso to Section 33(2)(b), as can be seen from its very unambiguous and clear language, is mandatory. This apart, from the object of Section 33 and in the context of the proviso to Section 33(2)(b), it is obvious that the conditions contained in the said proviso are to be essentially complied with. Further any employer who contravenes the provisions of Section 33 invites a punishment under S.31(1) with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to Rs.1000/- or with both. This penal provision is again a pointer of the mandatory nature of the proviso to comply with the conditions stated therein. To put it in other way, the said conditions being mandatory, are to be satisfied if an order of discharge or dismissal passed under Section 33(2)(b) is to be operative. If an employer desires to take benefit of the said provision for passing an order of discharge or dismissal of an employee, he has also to take the burden of discharging the statutory obligation placed on him in the said proviso. Taking a contrary view that an order of discharge or dismissal passed by an employer in contravention of the mandatory conditions contained in the proviso does not render such an order inoperative or void, defeats the very purpose of the proviso and it becomes meaningless. It is well-settled rule of interpretation that no part of statute shall be construed as unnecessary or superfluous. The proviso cannot be diluted or disobeyed by an employer. He cannot disobey the mandatory provision and then say that the order of discharge or dismissal made in contravention of Section 33(2)(b) is not void or inoperative. He cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong. The interpretation of statute must be such that it should advance the legislative intent and serve the purpose for which it is made rather than to frustrate it. The proviso to Section 33(2)(b) affords protection to a workman to safeguard his interest and it is a shield against victimization and unfair labour practice by the employer during the pendency of industrial dispute when the relationship between them are already strained. An employer cannot be permitted to use the provision of Section 33(2)(b) to ease out a workman without complying with the conditions contained in the said proviso for any alleged misconduct said to be unconnected with the already pending industrial dispute. The protection afforded to a workman under the said provision cannot be taken away. If it is to be held that an order of discharge or dismissal passed by the employer without complying with the requirements of the said proviso is not void or inoperative, the employer may with impunity discharge or dismiss a workman.
14. Where an application is made under Section 33(2)(b) proviso, the authority before which the proceeding is pending for approval of the action taken by the employer has to examine whether the order of dismissal or discharge is bona fide; whether it was by way of victimization or unfair labour practice; whether the conditions contained in the proviso were complied with or not, etc. If the authority refuses to grant approval obviously it follows that the employee continues to be in service as if order of discharge or dismissal never had been passed. The order of dismissal or discharge passed invoking Section 33(2)(b) dismissing or discharging an employee brings an end of relationship of employer and employee from the date of his dismissal or discharge but that order remains incomplete and remains inchoate as it is subject to approval of the authority under the said provision. In other words, this relationship comes to an end de jure only when the authority grants approval. If approval is not given, nothing more is required to be done by the employee, as it will have to be deemed that the order of discharge or dismissal had never been passed. Consequence of it is that the employee is deemed to have continued in service entitling him to all the benefits available. This being the position there is no need of a separate or specific order for his reinstatement. But on the other hand, if approval is given by the authority and if the employee is aggrieved by such an approval, he is entitled to make a complaint under Section 33A challenging the order granting approval on any of the grounds available to him. Section 33A is available only to an employee and is intended to save his time and trouble inasmuch as he can straightaway make a complaint before the very authority where the industrial dispute is already pending between the parties challenging the order of approval instead of making efforts to raise an industrial dispute, get a reference and thereafter adjudication. In this view, it is not correct to say that even though where the order of discharge or dismissal is inoperative for contravention of the mandatory conditions contained in the proviso or where the approval is refused, a workman should still make a complaint under Section 33A and that the order of dismissal or discharge becomes invalid or void only when it is set aside under Section 33A and that till such time he should suffer misery of unemployment in spite of statutory protection given to him by the proviso to Section 33(2)(b). It is not correct to say that where the order of discharge or dismissal becomes inoperative because of contravention of proviso to Section 33(2)(b), Section 33A would be meaningless and futile. The said Section has a definite purpose to serve, as already stated above, enabling an employee to make a complaint, if aggrieved by the order of the approval granted.
15. The view that when no application is made or the one made is withdrawn, there is no order of refusal of such application on merit and as such the order of dismissal or discharge does not become void or inoperative unless such an order is set aside under Section 33A, cannot be accepted. In our view, not making an application under Section 33(2)(b) seeking approval or withdrawing an application once made before any order is made thereon, is a clear case of contravention of the proviso to Section 33(2)(b). An employer who does not make an application under Section 33(2)(b) or withdraws the one made, cannot be rewarded by relieving him of the statutory obligation created on him to make such an application. If it is so done, he will be happier or more comfortable than an employer who obeys the command of law and makes an application inviting scrutiny of the authority in the matter of granting approval of the action taken by him. Adherence to and obedience of law should be obvious and necessary in a system governed by rule of law. An employer by design can avoid to make an application after dismissing or discharging an employee or file it and withdraw before any order is passed on it, on its merits, to take a position that such order is not inoperative or void till it is set aside under Section 33A notwithstanding the contravention of Section 33(2)(b) proviso, driving the employee to have recourse to one or more proceeding by making a complaint under Section 33A or to raise another industrial dispute or to make a complaint under Section 31(1). Such an approach destroys the protection specifically and expressly given to an employee under the said proviso as against possible victimization, unfair labour practice or harassment because of pendency of industrial dispute so that an employee can be saved from hardship of unemployment.?
17. In Jaipur Zila Sahakari Boomi Vikas Bank Ltd vs. Ram Gopal Sharma and others (supra), the provisions of Section 33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act has been elaborately dealt with. In this case, for the apprehension of the petitioners of their disengagement, Section 33(1), which is extracted, comes in handy:
?33(1) - During the pendency of any conciliation proceeding before a conciliation officer or a Board or of any proceeding before an arbitrator or a Labour Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal in respect of an industrial dispute, no employer shall -
(a) in regard to any matter connected with the dispute, alter, to the prejudice of the workmen concerned in such dispute, the conditions of service applicable to them immediately before the commencement of such proceeding.
(b) for any misconduct connected with the dispute, discharge or punish, whether by dismissal or otherwise, any workmen concerned in such dispute, save with the express permission in writing of the authority before which the proceeding is pending.?
In view of Section 21 of the 1970 Act r/w I.D. Act, 1947, the principal employer will have to pay money and he can recover the same from the contractor, as the principal employer is the party to the Industrial Dispute. In case wages are not paid, it is open to the employees concerned to file a petition under Section 33-C(1), claiming wages or make necessary application under Section 33-(C)(1) of the I.D.Act, 1947, claiming wages based on last drawn wages, as their claim would be supported by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Fabril Gasosa vs. Labour Commissioner and others, reported in (1997) 3 SCC 150. Industrial dispute under Section 10 of the I.D. Act for abolition of contract labour is not maintainable. But that cannot a ground to deprive the benefits under various provisions of the I.D.Act, 1947, when the industrial dispute is pending. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
To
1. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu State Advisory Contract Labour Board, and the Secretary to Government, Labour and Employment Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Secretary, Tamil Nadu State Advisory Contract Labour Board and the Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Contract Labour), Office of the Commissioner of Labour, DMS Campus, Teynampet, Chennai-600 006.
3. The Director of Industrial Health and Safety, (Chief Inspector of Factories), Royapettah, Chennai-600 014.
4. The Chairman / Managing Director and the Secretary to Government, The Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Limited, Industries Department, 67, Mount Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 025.
5. The Deputy Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Limited 67, Mount Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 032.
6. The Director (Operations) Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Limited Kakithapuram-639 136, Karur District.
7. The Deputy General Manager (HR), Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Limited, Kakithapuram-639 136, Karur District.
.