Managing AgentMr. M.S.P.Rajes (died), Yercaud.2. Dayalan Rajes3. Mohan Rajes4. Mrs. Gowri Pandinathan v. 1. The State of Tamil Nadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE : 19.12.2007CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.J.MUKHOPADHAYAANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.VENUGOPALW.A. NO. 2249 & 2250 OF 1999The Management of Stanmore Estaterep. by its Managing AgentMr. M.S.P.Rajes (died), Yercaud.2. Dayalan Rajes3. Mohan Rajes4. Mrs. Gowri Pandinathan.. Appellants/Petitioners (Appellants 2 to 4 brought on record as LRs of deceased 1st appellant vide order dated 24.4.02 in WAMP No.1003 & 1004 of 2002)- Vs -1. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by the Commissioner & Secretary to Government Labour Department Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009... 1st Respondent in both appeals2. The Industrial Tribunal Tamil Nadu, Chennai 600 104... R-2 in W.A. No. 2250/19932. The Neelamalai Plantation Workers Union (INTUC) by its.. R-2 in W.A. No.2249Secretary, Yercaud.of 1999 & R-3 in W.A. No.2250 of 1999Writ Appeals filed against the order dated 2nd Sept., 1998,passed by learned single Judge in W.P. No.4992 of 1989 and 3026 of1993. Peitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,parying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for records(1) connected with G.O.Ms.No. 1573 labour dated 27/7/1988 and quashthe said G.O. (as confirmed in Government Letter No. 47174/C2/88-2,Labour and Employment dated 10/11/1988) holding that the petitioner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ plantation is an establishment of a Seasobal Character or work isperformed therein only intermittently (in WP.No. 4992 of 1989).2. Connected with I.D.No. 55/1984 on the file of the 2ndrespondent Industrial Tribunal, Tamilnadu, Madras and quash theaward therein dated 30.01.1992 holding that the petitionersplantations is an establishment of a seasonal Character of Wrok isperformed therein only intermittently (in WP.No. 3026/1993).For Appellant: Mr. T.M.Hariharanin both WA'sFor Respondents: Mr. K.Balasubramanian, Spl. G.P. for R-1 in both the appeals Mr. S.Vaidyanathan for R-2 in WA 2249/1999 R-3 in WA 2250/99COMMON JUDGMENTS.J.MUKHOPADHAYA, J.These appeals have been preferred by the management ofStanmore Estate against common order dated 2nd Sept., 1998, passedby learned single Judge in W.P. Nos. 4992/89 and 3026/93.One of the writ petition, W.P. No.4992/89 was preferred bymanagement against order of the Government in G.O. Ms. No.1573,Labour, dated 27th July, 1988 and Government letter No.47174/C-2/88-2, Labour & Employment, dated 10th Nov., 1988. The other writpetition, W.P. No.3026/93 was preferred against consequential ordermade in I.D. No.55/84 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal,Chennai, dated 30th Jan., 1992.2. The brief case of the management is that the appellant,Stanmore Estate, (hereinafter referred to as 'Management') is acoffee plantation in Nagalur Village, Yercaud Taluk, SalemDistrict. The estate comprise of 300 acres of coffee plantation,employing 100 workers apart from few casual labourers. By G.O. Ms.No.1307 dated 15th June, 1984, issued from Labour Department of theState, a dispute between the appellant and the respondent,Neelamalai Plantation Workers Union (hereinafter referred to as'Union') regarding non-employment of 120 workers for the periodfrom 1st March, 1983 to 31st May, 1983 was referred to the IndustrialTribunal for adjudication. It was registered as I.D. No.55/84.The union filed a claim statement before the Tribunal stating thatStanmore Estate is not a seasonal establishment and it is notentitled to declare annual closure as a seasonal establishment. Onthe other hand, a plea was taken by the management that StanmoreEstate is a seasonal establishment and due to annual closure,persons were removed. As the matter could have been consideredonly by the Government u/s 25-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') the managementmoved before the State Government in an application dated 21st July,1986, for a decision on the question of whether the management ofStanmore Estate is an industrial establishment of seasonalcharacter and whether the work is performed thereon onlyintermediary u/s 25-A (2) of the Act or Section 25-K (2) of thesaid Act.The union filed an objection in the said proceeding and by anorder dated 16th July, 1987, the State Government rejected theapplication made by the management against which a writ petition,W.P. No.9147/87 was filed by the management before this Court. Thematter was remitted and ultimately on remand, the impugned G.O. Ms.No.1573, Labour, dated 27th July, 1988, was passed. The StateGovernment has taken plea that the management has not made out acase to declare the establishment as a seasonal establishment u/s25-K (2) of the Act.The management filed further representation to the Governmenton 19th Aug., 1999 and requested to reconsider the matter andreiterated its claim inviting attention to report on the Conditionof Labourers in Plantations in India, submitted by Mr.D.V.Rage,ICS, Chairman, Labour Investigation Committee, as was published in1946 and the report of the Plantation Enquiry Commission, 1958.The state of the working and living condition of the labourers inSouthern India published by Central Government in 1984 were alsoreferred to suggest that the work in a coffee plantation isseasonal. The 1st respondent, by letter dated 10th Oct., 1988, hadinformed the State that there was no reason to revise the ordersalready issued on 27th July, 1988.3. The management has claimed to be a seasonal establishmentand assailed the order giving reference to the following facts :-a) The establishment of the management is a coffer estate,which works only for nine months in a year, is a seasonalestablishment. After coffee plants blossom, they should not bedisturbed in any manner and, therefore, all work in the estatewould be stopped for over a month. Accordingly, during April, Mayand June, depending on the occurrence of monsoonic rains, therewill be annual closure. This aspect has not been considered by theState.b) The plantation has no operation to perform after harvestfor about a month after the blossom set in.c) Though 'seasonal establishment' is not defined under theAct, it is well understood that an establishment, which by its verynature does not work for whole of the year is a seasonalestablishment. In this case, it has been recognised and declaredunder Employees Provident Fund Scheme that the establishment is aseasonal establishment, which has not been noticed by the State. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ d) The coffee crop, being seasonal, the manufacture of coffeein a factory has been statutorily declared seasonal, as per section2 (12) of the Employees State Insurance Act, this aspect has notbeen looked into properly nor appreciated by the respondent-State.On the other hand, according to counsel for the union, exceptfor few days, which is declared like a holiday, the establishmentis open and work is taken for the rest of the year.4. Learned single Judge noticed the aforesaid submission, andfurther noticed the manner in which coffee plantation is carriedout throughout the year in the State and shown hereunder :-January:PickingFebruary:StrippingMarch:Cleaning & PruningApril & May:Weeding, Pre-blossom manuring,borer control boundary clearing,Nursery work, etc.June:Shade lopping, removing sukkers,handling and sprayingJuly & August:Weeding, Post-blossom manuring andplantingSeptember & October:Spraying lime application, borercontrol and fly pickingNovember & December:PickingThe aforesaid particulars were furnished by the StateGovernment to show that the blossom period consists only a very fewdays and not three months as claimed by the management.5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant triedto refer certain books to show that blossom takes about a month,but such question of fact cannot be deliberated by this Court underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India.The question whether the establishment is seasonal or not is aquestion of fact, which can be determined only on the basis ofevidence on record. The other question whether the period ofworking is controlled by seasonal condition is also a factor, whichcould be determined only on the basis of evidence. 6. Apart from the fact that the matter was looked into by theState and deliberated by Tribunal with regard to the nature of workperformed by the workmen, learned single Judge noticed theaffidavit filed by the establishment, wherein at para-12 (a) it isstated that after the coffee plants blossom, they should not bedisturbed in any manner, less the blossom would fall and,therefore, all work in the estate would be stopped for over amonth. Taking into consideration the aforesaid fact and the otherwork that is being done month to month in a coffee plantation and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ referred to above and that no mala fide was alleged against anyindividual and as the order passed by the State Government cannotbe stated to be perverse, the writ court refused to interfere withthe orders.7. Similar stand having taken before this Court and havingnoticed the aforesaid facts and the detailed judgment rendered bylearned single Judge, we find no ground made out to differ withsuch finding. There being no merit, the writ appeals aredismissed. But there shall be no order as to costs.GLNSd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1. The Commissioner & Secretary to Government Labour Department Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.2. The Industrial Tribunal Tamil Nadu, Chennai 600 104.•Two ccs to Mr. S. Vaidyanathan, Advocate SR.No. 75689, 756901•One cc to Mr. Govt Pleader SR 75363BS (co)sg 05/01/08 JUDGMENT IN W.A. NOS. 2249 & 2250 OF 1999Pronounced on 19.12.2007