The Management of Glenfell Estate v. the Assistant Commissioner of Labour- Plantation

Madras HC11 Jun 2025WP/14237/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras HC 11.06.2025, W.P.No.14237 of 2022 (P. Dhanabal, J.); Glenfell Estate, Yercaud v Assistant Commissioner of Labour – Plantation, Yercaud; Plantation Labour Act 1951, Sections 1(4), 3(b)(5), 3(b)(6); Article 226 certiorari; refusal to cancel plantation registration; unreasoned one-line order after ~19-year delay; duty to pass speaking/reasoned order; efflux of time bars revival of stale 28.02.2002 application; liberty to file fresh deregistration application with documents; writ disposed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of with the observation that the petitioner may file a fresh application to the respondent with sufficient supporting documents, which the respondent must consider in accordance with law without delay; no costs were awarded. ¶¶37

The Management of Glenfell Estate Vs the Assistant… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 20.04.2021 in Proceedings Na.Ka.No. Moo. Mo. 425/2017, by which the respondent declined to cancel the registration of the petitioner's plantation under the Plantation Labour Act, 1951 without assigning reasons, is liable to be quashed. +1 more

¶¶14

Court's answer

The respondent ought to have passed a speaking order on merits, and the impugned order makes no reference to the inspection conducted by the respondent.

¶¶32

Ratio / Principle

Given that about 14 years have elapsed since the 28.02.2002 application, it is not appropriate to now direct the respondent to consider that application.

¶¶32

Key takeaways

Due to efflux of time and because the petitioner has produced no documents before the respondent substantiating the claimed reduction of workers, it is not appropriate to set aside the impugned order.ratio¶¶32
The petitioner is at liberty to approach the respondent afresh with a new application supported by sufficient documents, and the respondent is directed to consider any such application in accordance with law without delay.ratio¶¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Madras (P. Dhanabal, J.), 11.06.2025 — W.P.No.14237 of 2022, disposed. The Management of Glenfell Estate, Yercaud, challenged the order dated 20.04.2021 of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour – Plantation, Yercaud, in Proceedings No.Na.Ka.No. Moo. Mo 425/2017 declining to cancel the estate's registration under the Plantation Labour Act, 1951. The estate had been registered when it employed more than 30 workers; it represented on 28.02.2002 that its workforce had fallen to 10 and sought deregistration under Section 1(4) of the Act, but received only an unreasoned one-line refusal on 20.04.2021, making no reference to the respondent's inspection. The Court held the respondent ought to have passed a speaking order on merits; however, considering the lapse of 14 years, the efflux of time, and the absence of any documents produced by the petitioner substantiating the reduction in workforce, it declined to set aside the order or direct reconsideration of the 2002 representation. The petitioner was left at liberty to file a fresh application with sufficient documents, to be considered by the respondent in accordance with law without delay. No costs.

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 11.06.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.DHANABAL

¶6

W.P.No.14237 of 2022

¶7

The Management of Glenfell Estate Muntakkampatti Village, Ondikadai, Yercaud Rep. by is Proprietor ... Petitioner Vs

¶8

The Assistant Commissioner of Labour – Plantation O/o the Asst. Commissioner of Labour Yercaud. ... Respondent

¶9

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the respondent in Proceedings No.Na.Ka.No. Moo. Mo 425/2017 and quash its order dated 20.04.2021.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.W.Aadarsh Levin for M/s.T.S.Gopalan and Co.Advocates For Respondents : Mr.L.S.M. Hasan Fizal AGP

¶11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶12

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

This petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash the proceedings in Na.Ka.No. Moo. Mo. 425/2017 dated 20.04.2021 passed by the respondent.

¶15

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that

¶16

the petitioner is a coffee plantation situated at Yercaud in Salem District. It was started in the year 1970. Earlier, the Petitioner Estate was registered under Section 1(4) of the Plantation Labour Act, 1951. At that time, more than 30 employees were employed in the estate, and in the year 2002, the number of employees was reduced to 10. As per Section 1(4) of the Plantation Labour Act, 1951 do not attract for registration. Therefore, the petitioner sent a representation to the respondent on 28.02.2002 to cancel the above said registration. However, no order was passed by the respondent till 19.04.2021. Without assigning any reason, the respondent passed two lines order that there is no necessity arises to cancel the registration. Therefore, the said order has been challenged by the petitioner. As per Section 3(b)(5) of registration of the Plantation Act, any change occurs in the ownership or Management or in the extent of area or other

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

¶19

prescribed particulars in respect of such plantation, the particulars regarding such change shall be intimated by the employer to the Registering Officer within 30 days of such change. On receipt of the same, as per Section 3(b)(6), the Registering Officer on satisfaction that the plantation is no longer required to be registered under Section, is said by the order in writing cancel, the registration thereafter and as soon as practicable, cause such order to be published in any one newspaper in the language of and having circulation in the area, where the plantation is situated. In this case after receipt of the same, the respondent has not passed the order. Thereafter, without conducting any enquiry after 11 years, an impugned order was passed and the same is liable to be quashed.

¶20

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit

¶21

that due to some reasons, there is a delay in passing the order. After receiving the petition, they conducted an inspection and found that the continuance of registration was essential in terms of workers welfare, hence, the application was kept undecided. Finally the application was decided by the Commissioner of Labour, Chennai at the request of the petitioner and the decision was communicated to him on 20.04.2021. The extent of acres is about 60 acres out of which, 43 acres have coffee

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

¶24

plantation. To maintain such a vast plantation, a minimum of 20 workers is required. Since the plantation industry has not been statutorily declared to be a seasonal work, the workers are entitled to wages for all the days. Ten workers will not be sufficient for the estate, and the petitioner himself admitted that causal workers are engaged on daily wages during the harvesting and on a rotational basis for the rest of the time. Therefore, the respondent passed reasoned orders and the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶25

This Court heard both sides and perused the materials available on

¶26

record.

¶27

It is an admitted fact that the petitioner's estate was registered under the Plantation Labour Act, 1951, and thereafter the petitioner sent a representation to the respondent stating that the number of workers had been reduced from 30 to 10 and that registration is not required under Section 1(4) of the Act. After receipt of the said representation dated 28.02.2002, no order was passed by the respondent within a reasonable time, and on 20.04.2021, the respondent passed an order by declining to cancel the registration without assigning any reason. The petitioner has not

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

¶30

produced any documents to show that the number of workers had been reduced from 30 to 10 and the respondent also passed only a one-line order, which is extracted here under:

¶31

ghh;itapy; fhZk; brd;id bjhHpyhsh; Mizah; mth;fspd; Fwpg;ghizapd;go bgh;tpl;uh v!;nll; kw;Wk; fpbsd;bgy; v!;nll; vd;w njhl;lepWtd';fis njhl;l bjhH[pyhsh; rl;lk; kw;Wk; tpjpfspd; fPH; tpLtpf;f mtrpak; vHtpy;iy vd mwpt[Wj;jg;gl;Ls;sJ vd bjhptpj;Jf; bfhs;sg;gLfpwJ/

¶32

The respondent ought to have passed the speaking order on merits and there is no reference to the inspection made by the respondent. Though the application was made on 28.02.2002, the respondent passed the impugned order only on 20.04.2021 and there is a huge delay on the part of respondent. Therefore, now after 14 years it is not appropriate to direct the respondent to consider the application dated 28.02.2002. Due to efflux of time, without any documents produced by the petitioner before the respondent, it is not appropriate to set aside the order. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the respondent through a fresh application by producing sufficient documents to support his contention.

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

¶35

On such application if any filed by the writ petitioner, the respondent is

¶36

directed to consider the same in accordance with law without any delay.

¶37