Management of Subramaniya Siva Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd v. The Presiding Officer Labour Court, Vellore & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 29.01.2009CoramThe Honourable Mrs.Justice PRABHA SRIDEVANandThe Honourable Mr.Justice K.K.SASIDHARANW.A.No. 1612 of 2007Management of Subramaniya SivaCo-operative Sugar Mills LtdHarur, Harur TalukDharmapuri District...Appellant / 2nd Respondent-vs-1. The Presiding Officer Labour Court, Vellore2. T.Murugesan3. G.Settu4. R.Rajamanickam5. P.Murugesan6. C.Sekar7. P.Mathaiyan8. P.Nadumathiyan9. J.Karunakaran10. K.Venkatesan11. K.Ravisankar12. C.Rajagopal13.V.Sivakumar14. A.Manivannan15.A.Murugan16. C.Kaliappan17. K.Lakshmanar18. A.Raji19. R.Krishnan20. R. Selvaraj21.M.Kamal Abdul Nazar22. K.Ramesh23. A. Tamilarasan24. C.Murugan25. Thavamani26. S.Kuppan https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

27. V.Natarajan28. P. Vediyappan29. B.Manoharan30. P.Thavamani31. G.Raman32. A.Elanthamizh33. M.Palani34. P.Chinnadurai35. P.Sivaperumal36. C.Vanithan37. K. Iyappan38. R.Mathu39. N.Veeramani40. C. Sethuraman41. M.Anisha Basha42. M. Raja43. V.Palanisamy44. K. Chinnaraji45. T. Chinnathambi46. A. Balamurugan47. P. Subramani48. T.Siva49. P. Chinnakannu50. P. Raja51. S.Rajamani52. M. Chandran53. P. Arjunan54. M.Rajaram55. S.Rameshkumar56. A. Natarajan57. A. Vaiyapuri58. R. Govindan59. M. Venkatesan60. R.Rajagopal61. C.Murugesan62. R.Selvam63. R. Paneerselvam64. G. Selvam65. V. Perumal66. C. Subramani67. K. Murugan68. R. Ramaligam69. N. Venkatachalam70. P.Natarajan71. N. Nethaji72. P.Kumar73. S. Govindaraj74. P.Mani75. S. Pachaiyappan https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

76. P.Munusamy77. T.Rajendran78. C.Krishnan79. P. Venkatesan80. N.Arumugam81. P.Murugan82. G.Sampath83. G.Venkatesan84. C. Sevathan85. A.Susi86. R.Logan87. P.Jadaiyan88. S. Loganathan89. K.Venkatachalam90. V. Govindan91. C.Somu92. R. Perumal93. A.Ramasamy 94. M. Devendran95. D.Murgan96. P.Devaraj97. C.Kaliappan98. P.Mohan99. G.Murugan100.C.Vadivel101.G.Krishnamurthy102. R.Jadaiyand103.K.Murugan104. K.Ganesan105.R. Madheswaran106.M.Palani107.K.Dhandapani108. G.Venkatesan109. P.Krishnamurthy110.C.Sivakumar111.G.Sethu112.P.Mathu113.R.Gopu114.A.Thangasamy115.K.Rajendran116.R.Adhimoolam117. G.Govindaraj118. P.Raji119.P.Selvam120.P.Rajamanickam121.P.Shanmugam122.A.Seenu123.S.Shanmugam124.K.Annamalai https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

125.M.Saravanan126.G.Sampath127.P.Ramanathan128.K.M.Krishnamurthy129.C.Arumugam130.K.Saravanan131.V.Selvam132.R. Chinnaraj133.S.Sakthi134.G.Selvan135.C.Ramasundaram136.C.Murugan137.R.Elumalai138. V.Govidaraj139.A.Kumar140.P.Palanisamy141.K.Sundaraiyar...RespondentsWrit appeal against the order made in WP.No.2086 of 1998dated 3.8.2007, calling for the records relating to the CommonAward passed by the first respondent, dated 14.11.1996 inI.D.Nos.199, 200, 202 to 223, 225 to 299, 361 to 391, 393, 395,396, 399 to 404 and 406 of 1995, dismissing all the IndustrialDisputes and quash the same and direct the second respondent toreinstate all the petitioners herein, with continuity of serviceand backwages and all other benefits, with costs.For Appellant:Mr.R.ParthibanFor Respondents:Mr.R.Yashod Vardhan, Senior Counselfor Mr.N.Damodaranfor RR 3,6,9, 12, 13, 18, 20,21, 2425, 30, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 4347, 49, 52, 58, 62, 63, 68 to 72, 75 to 77, 87, 92, 93, 95, 97, 98, 101, 115, 116,119, 121, 125, 128, 129, 134 and 139 JUDGMENT(The judgment of the Court was made by PRABHA SRIDEVAN,J)The Management of the Sugar Mills has filed this writ appealagainst the order of the learned Single Judge setting aside theLabour Court award and giving directions for inclusion of thenames of the writ petitioners in the list of season workers(casuals). https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. Industrial Disputes were raised under Section 2A(2) of theIndustrial Disputes Act by the employees of the appellant sugarmills. They claimed that they had worked more than 240 days inevery year of service in the past. According to them, they havesigned in the wages register regularly and they are equal to otheremployees of the mills. The employees denied that there were anyregistered contractors in the appellant mill during the period ofservice. The appellant of course took a stand that the employeeswere all contract labourers and they had no privity of contractwith the employees. According to them, they were supplied by thecontractors periodically. The Labour Court, Vellore accepted thecase of the appellant that they were workmen under the contractlabourers and not regular workmen of the appellant and therefore,rejected the claim of regularisation, reinstatement and payment ofbackwages. Aggrieved by this, the workmen moved this Court. 3. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that thecase of the appellant that the workmen were all contract labourerscannot be accepted. The alleged contractors were not registered asa contractors under the appellant sugar mill as per the provisionsof the Contract Labour (Abolition and Regulation) Act, 1970 norwas the appellant the principal employer under the said Act.Learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that no evidence wasplaced before the Labour Court to support the case of theappellant that the alleged contractors were registeredcontractors. Learned single Judge also held that the work ordersalleged to have been issued by these contractors cannot form thebasis for the conclusion that the workmen were contract labourers.Therefore, the learned Judge was pleased to eschew the theory ofthe contract employment and held that the petitioners had provedthat they were all engaged during the crushing season in the years1992-93 for a period of 98 days and 1993-94 for a period of 89days. Therefore, the writ petition was disposed of directing theappellant mill to include the names of the workmen in the list ofseason workers ( casuals) at the end of the list and provide themwith an opportunity for such engagement during the crushing seasonon rotational basis. The claim for reinstatement, backwages andother attendant benefits was not granted. Against this, theworkmen did not file any appeal, but the Management of the sugarmill chose to file the above appeal. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that thereis a categoric finding by the Labour Court that the workmen wereengaged only through the contracts and they were contractlabourers and such finding of fact cannot be easily interefered https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ with. He also submitted that in a decision rendered in DENA NATHAND OTHERS v. NATIONAL FERTILIZERS LIMITED AND OTHERS - 1992 1 LLJpage 289, the Supreme Court held that merely because contractor orthe employer had violated any provision of the Act or the rules,that will not justify the issuance of a mandamus for deeming thecontract labour as having become the employees of the principalemployer. Learned counsel also submitted that DENA NATH case hasbeen followed in STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED v. NATIONALUNION WATERFRONT WORKERS AND ORS – 2001 7 SCC 1 which over ruledAIR INDIA STATUTORY CORPORATION AND OTHERS v. UNITED LABOUR UNIONAND OTHERS – 1997 9 SCC 377. Hence, the ratio in 1992 I LLJ 289governs the field. Learned counsel submitted that when the workmenthemselves had not claimed that they were seasonal workers'casual' , this relief could not have been granted. According tothe learned counsel, there are four kinds of workers. (1).Permanent, (2). Permanent and seasonal workers, (3). Non permanentand Seasonal workers or casuals and (4). Contract Labourers. Theworkmen come under the last category as correctly found by theLabour Court. Therefore, he prayed that the order of the learnedSingle Judge be set aside. 5. Learned senior counsel appearing for workmen submittedthat in the affidavit, the workmen had specifically taken thestand that the Se.Kandappan Co-operative Sugar Mill CoolieThozhilalargal Sangam, and P.Natarajan, its President were allthe creations of the management and that the said Natarajanhimself was a worker and that the management had created recordsto show as if, the workmen were contract labourer of the aforesaidsangam. There is no counter to that and in fact even in the awardof the Labour Court it is seen that contractor Natarajan had filedI.D.No. 269/95 claiming that he is worker and that his sonNethaji, who is also a worker, had filed I.D.No. 270/95.Therefore, without any basis, the Labour Court had come to theconclusion that they were contract labourers. 6. Though it is true that the finding of fact cannot belightly disturbed, when the factual finding is arrived at by mis-construction of evidence or without the basis of any evidence,then our power under Article 226 of the Constitution is notrestricted. That is what the learned single Judge has done. Thelearned Single Judge has followed the directions given by theSupreme Court in the decision reported in MORINDA CO-OP. SUGARMILLS LTD v. RAM KRISHNA - 1995 (ii) LLN 1129 which is extractedin the order itself and also followed the decision reported inANIL BAPURAO KANASE v. KRISHNA SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD - 1997(10) SCC 599 rendered by three Judge Bench, wherein the SupremeCourt held that, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "..... In MORINDIA CO-OP. SUGAR MILLS LTD v.RAM KRISHNA in para 3, this Court has dealtwith engagement of the seasonal workman insugarcane crushing; in para 4, it is statedthat it was not a case of retrenchment of theworkman, but of closure of the factory afterthe crushing season was over. Accordingly, inpara 5, it was held that it is not"retrenchment" within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of the Act. As a consequence theappellant is not entitled to retrenchment asper clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) of the Act.Since the present work is seasonal business,the principles of the Act have no application.However, this Court has directed that therespondent management should maintain aregister and engage the workmen when theseason starts in the succeeding years in theorder of seniority. Until all the employeeswhose names appear in the list are engaged inaddition to the employees who are alreadyworking, the management should not got in forfresh engagement of new workmen. It would beincumbent upon the respondent management toadopt such procedure as is enumerated above. "7. This has also been followed by our Court in P.S.M. EMP.UNION v. PERAMBALUR SUGAR MILLS, LTD. - 2002 2 LLN 345, wherein itis held as follows:-"Taking note of the grievance expressedby the casual workers, we hereby direct themanagement, Perambalur Sugar Mills, tomaintain register and engage the workmen whenthe season starts in the succeeding years inthe order of seniority. Only the employeeswhose names appear in the list have to beengaged in addition to the employees who arealready working. The management should not goin for fresh engagement of new workmen. To putit clear, the sugar mills is directed tomaintain a register for all the workmenengaged during the seasons and when the newseason starts, the sugar mills should make apublication in local Tamil Dailies in theneighbouring places in which the workmennormally live and if they would report forduty, the sugar mills would engage them in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ accordance with seniority and exigency ofwork. Though Sri Vijay Narayan, learnedcounsel for the sugar mills has stated thatthis procedure is being followed by them inorder to safeguard the interests of the casualworkers, we made this observation. With theseobservations, both the writ appeal and writpetition are dismissed. No costs. "8. The workman claimed a larger relief of reinstatement,backwages etc. The learned Single Judge found that they were onlyentitled to a smaller relief and we see nothing wrong in that.There is factual basis to show the number of days the workers hadworked. So, the following directions were given,"With that view, the impugned commonaward of the first respondent Labour Court isset aside and the same is replaced by thisorder. The second respondent- Sugar Mills isdirected to include the names of thepetitioners in the list of seasonal workers(casuals) at the end of the list and providethem with an opportunity for such engagementduring the crushing season on rotational basisas is being offered to other similarly placedworkers. The second respondent – Sugar Millsis directed to carry out the above saidexercise in the next crushing season of 2007-2008 and shall continue to do so dependingupon the exigency of the situation warrantingtheir engagement."9. We do not see how the appellant can be aggrieved by this,especially when the workmen have not been granted reinstatement,backwages. We are of the opinion that the appeal has been filedwithout any justification. 10. In these circumstances, we see no reason to interferewith the order passed by the learned single Judge. The writ appealis dismissed with costs. Bg29.1.2009This Appeal having been posted today ie., on Wednesday, the25th day of February 2009 under the caption for 'Being Mentioned'and upon perusing the order of this Court dated 29.1.2009 and madeherein, and in the presence of the aforesaid advocates, the Courtmade the following order:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (The order of the Court was made by PRABHA SRIDEVAN,J)This matter has been placed before this Court for beingmentioned since the Registry pointed out that as per rules in thematter that arises under Article 226 of the constitution of India,the Court has to mention the quantum of costs. Accordingly, thecosts shall be Rs.500/-.bg25.2.2009Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarToThe Presiding Officer,Labour Court, Vellore.+ 1 cc to Mr. N. Damodaran, Advocate SR No.4551+ 1 cc to Mr. R. Parthiban, Advocate SR No.7078W.A.No.1612 of 2007KA(CO)SR/3.3.2009