Nafed Processed Foods(A unit of National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing FederationIndia Limited)Crescent Court v. The Labour Inspector (rep. TNIND Permanent Employees Act)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 18.2.2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. CHANDRUWRIT PETITION NO.4800 OF 2000Nafed Processed Foods(A unit of National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing FederationIndia Limited)Crescent Court, II Floor,963, Poonamallee High RoadChennai – 600 084.... PetitionerVs.1. The Labour Inspector (rep. TNIND Permanent Employees Act), 3rd Circle, Chennai.2. G. Murugesan3. N. Pachaiyappan4. K. Jayaraman5. R.C.Ramachandran... RespondentsWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling forthe records of the first respondent in E.Nos.336, 337, 338,339/1998, dated 16.6.1999 and quash the same.For Petitioner : Mr. S. VijayadharaniFor R1 : Ms. Sneha, Government AdvocateFor R2 to R5 : Mr. Balan Haridass https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E RThe petitioner is a Multi-State Co-operative Society.Aggrieved by the order passed by the first respondent in respectof Labour Court in E.Nos.336 to 339/1998, dated 16.6.1999, thepresent writ petition has been filed.2. The writ petition was admitted on 22.3.2000. Pending writpetition, this Court granted an order of interim stay on 20.9.2000directing the petitioner to deposit Rs.3 lakhs before the firstrespondent and on such deposit, the amount was directed to beinvested in approved security. Subsequently, when the matter cameup on 4.9.2003, it was informed that the petitioner had alreadycomplied with the said condition. Though the workman took up anapplication to withdraw the said amount at the rate of Rs.75,000/-for each respondents 2 to 5, this Court did not grant the relief,but merely allowed each of the contesting respondents to withdrawthe interest periodically. By the impugned order, the firstrespondent has granted the benefit of Section 3 of the Tamil NaduIndustrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status toWorkmen) Act, 1981, (for short Tamil Nadu Act 46 of 1981) on thefooting that respondents 2 to 5 have put in 480 days of servicewithin the period of 24 calendar months. The first respondent isthe Inspector and entitled to decide the dispute between theparties in terms of Rule 6 framed under the Tamil Nadu Act 46 of1981. The contentions raised before this Court are that thepetitioner being a Multi-State Co-operative Society is not coveredunder Section 2(4) of the Tamil Nadu Act 46 of 1981 and theworkers have accepted the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. Therefore,the workers are ineligible for any relief. 3. With reference to the first contention, the issue issquarely covered by a judgment of this Court in V.ELAYAPERUMAL VS.STATE BANK OF INDIA, ASAVEERANKUDIKADU BRANCH reported in 2007(2)LLN 212. In that case, an identical question came up forconsideration as to whether the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Shopsand Establishments Act, which automatically exempted theprovisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 46 of 1981 came up forconsideration before a Division Bench of this Court, to which Iwas a member (K.Chandru,J.,) and in paragraphs 12 and 13, theDivision Bench held as follows:-" 12. From a conjoint reading of Section 2(6) withSection 2(3) of the Shops Act, it is seen that the bankcomes within the field of "commercial establishment"included in " the establishment" falling under CL(e) ofSub-section (3) of Section 2 of the Permanent StatusAct. For the purpose of Permanent Status Act, thedefinition of an "establishment" as defined in the Shops https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Act had alone been borrowed and not the other provisionsof the Shops Act. In such a situation, once an"establishment" falls within the definition of"establishment" under Cl (e) of Sub-section (3) ofSection 3 of the Permanent Status Act, the inevitableconclusion is that the provisions of the said Act areapplicable in construing the conferment of permanentstatus to any workman, who fulfills the criteria as laiddown under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 thereof,notwithstanding anything contained in any other law forthe time being in force, unless and until theGovernment, invoking its power under Section 9 of thePermanent Status Act exempts conditionally orunconditionally any employer or class of employers orany industrial establishments from the provisionsthereof. Therefore, once the establishment is defined inthe Permanent Status Act by incorporating the definitionof establishment in the Shops Act the definition soincorporated in Permanent Status Act become part andparcel of the later Act.13. The law on the subject is well settled. When anearlier Act or certain of its provisions areincorporated become part and parcel of the later Act asif they had been bodily transposed into it. Theincorporation of an earlier Act into a later Act is alegislative device adopted for the sake of conveniencein order to avoid verbatim reproduction of theprovisions of the earlier Act into the later. But thismust be distinguished from a referential legislationwhich merely contains a reference or the citation of theprovisions of an earlier statute. In a case where astatute is incorporated, by reference, into a secondstatute, the repeal of the first statute by a third doesnot affect the second. The later Act along with theincorporated provisions of the earlier Act constitute anindependent legislation which is not modified orrepealed by a modification or repeal of the earlier Act.However, where in later Act there is a mere reference toan earlier Act, the modification, repeal or amendment ofthe statute that is referred, will also have an effecton the statute in which it is referred. It is equallywell settled that the question whether a former statuteis merely referred to or cited in a later statute, orwhether it is wholly or partially incorporated therein,is a question of construction." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. Therefore, the preliminary objection made by thepetitioner society cannot be countenanced by this Court. Withreference to the acceptance of voluntary retirement, Mr.BalanHaridas, learned counsel appearing for the workmen contended thatthey have accepted it without prejudice to the outcome of the writpetition and he has also relied upon the judgment of this Court inS. VIJAYALAKSHMI VS. TAMIL NADU WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINATE BOARDreported in 2006 WLR 91. This Court is not inclined to go into thesaid issue, as the workmen have already moved the Labour Courtwith a petition under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial DisputesAct claiming wages on par with the permanent workers till the dateof their Voluntary Retirement Scheme.5. In the light of the same, the parties will work out theirright to get both wages on the basis of the outcome of theproceedings pending before the Labour Court. Hence, the writpetition is misconceived and devoid of merits. Accordingly, thewrit petition stands dismissed. However, there will be no order asto costs. 6. In the light of the writ petition being dismissed,respondents 2 to 5 are entitled to withdraw each Rs.75,000/-together with interest if any accrued without any reference tothis Court.KbSd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarToThe Labour Inspector (rep. TNIND Permanent EmployeesAct), 3rd Circle, Chennai.+1 cc to Mr. Balan Haridas, Advocate SR No.6797KK(CO)SR/27.2.2009W.P.No.4800 of 2000