The Management Vs C.Boopathy

¶1

W.P. Nos. 19742 & 19746 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

RESERVED ON : 10.02.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 06.03.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETE

¶6

W.P. Nos.19742 & 19746 of 2020 and

¶7

W.M.P. Nos. 24386 & 24389 of 2020 and 2485 of 2024

¶8

The Management, Salem Co-operative Sugar Factory, (Salem Co-operative Sugar Mill Limited), Mohanoor – 637 015, Namakkal District. ... Petitioner in both the petitions

¶9

Versus

¶10

C.Boopathy, S/o.Chinnasamy, Keal Pettapalayam, Pettapalayam, Mohanoor – 637 015, Namakkal District. ... Respondent in W.P.No.19742 of 2020 Sankar S/o.Ponnusamy, Puthukombai, Palayapalayam Post, Namakkal District. ... Respondent in W.P.No.19746 of 2020

¶11

Prayer in W.P.No. 19742 of 2020:

¶12

To issue a Writ of Certiorari, call for the records relating to the impugned 1/24

¶13

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

¶14

W.P. Nos. 19742 & 19746 of 2020

¶15

Award dated 29.07.2019 made in I.D.No.199 of 2014 on the file of the Hon’ble Labour Court, Salem and quash the same.

¶16

Prayer in W.M.P. No. 24386 of 2020:

¶17

To grant interim stay of operation of the impugned Award dated 29.07.2019 passed in I.D.No. 199 of 2014 on the file of the Hon’ble Labour Court, Salem pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

¶18

Prayer in W.P.No. 19746 of 2020:

¶19

To issue a Writ of Certiorari, call for the records relating to the impugned Award dated 29.07.2019 made in I.D.No. 209 of 2014 on the file of the Labour Court, Salem and quash the same.

¶20

Prayer in W.M.P. No. 24389 of 2020:

¶21

To grant interim stay of operation of the impugned Award dated 29.07.2019 passed in I.D.No.209 of 2014 on the file of the Hon’ble Labour Court, Salem pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

¶22

Prayer in W.M.P.No. 2485 of 2024:

¶23

To grant Ad-interim direction directing the Respondent / Petitioner to pay the petitioner / Respondent last drawn wages from the date of dismissal as per section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass such further or other orders

¶24

2/24

¶25

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

¶26

W.P. Nos. 19742 & 19746 of 2020

¶27

as this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶28

Appearance of Parties:

¶29

For Petitioner : Mr. R. Balaramesh, Advocate for Mr. R. Balaramesh & Mr. K. Vasanthanayagan, Advocates in both cases.

¶30

For Respondents : Mr. R. Rengaramanujam, Advocate for Mr. R. Rengaramanujam, Mr. T.N. Sugesh, Mr. V. Ponnuthurai &

¶31

Mr. G. Sudangan Advocates in both cases.

¶32

C O M M O N J U D G M E N T

¶33

Heard.

¶34

The writ petitioner in both petitions is the management of a

¶35

cooperative sugar factory in Salem. These two petitions challenge the

¶36

Award issued by the Labour Court, Salem, in I.D. No. 199 of 2014 and

¶37

I.D. No. 209 of 2014, both dated 29.07.2019. Through separate awards,

¶38

the Labour Court ruled that the oral termination of the workman C.

¶39

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

¶40

3/24

¶41

W.P. Nos. 19742 & 19746 of 2020

¶42

Boopathy on 08.12.2012 and the termination of Sankar on 12.01.2013 were illegal. Consequently, the court set aside both terminations and directed the management to reinstate the workmen with back wages.

¶43

In both writ petitions, a notice of motion was issued on 23.12.2020. Although the management filed two Miscellaneous Petitions in W.M.P. Nos. 24386 of 2020 and 24389 of 2020, seeking an interim stay on the operation of the Award, no orders were passed. The Respondent C. Boopathy, in W.P. No. 19742 of 2020, filed a Miscellaneous Petition in W.M.P. No. 2485 of 2024, seeking payment of last drawn wages under Section 17B. However, no orders have been passed in that petition either. As a result, all three WMPs remain pending.

¶44

The circumstances leading to the filing of these writ petitions are

¶45

as follows. A trade union, namely the Salem Co-operative Sugar Mills National Workers Union, filed W.P. No. 14700 of 2008 before this Court, seeking a direction to the management to refrain from engaging contract labor in place of 84 workmen who had approached the 4/24

¶46

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

¶47

W.P. Nos. 19742 & 19746 of 2020

¶48

competent authority under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status) Act, 1981 (T.N. Act 46/1981), seeking the conferment of permanent status.

¶49

After issuing notice to the parties, this Court disposed of the writ petition by an order dated 01.09.2008. Upon noting that a petition was pending before the authority under the Permanent Status Act, the Court directed the authority to complete the inquiry and pass appropriate orders within three months, with the management required to cooperate in the process. After the disposal, the Court issued the following direction to the management:

¶50

“It is made clear that after the decision is rendered by the authority under Tamil Nadu Act 46 of 1981, it is open to the 2^nd respondent to act in accordance with the decision arrived at by the said authority.”

¶51

The competent authority, namely the Deputy Chief Inspector of

¶52

Factories, Salem, by an order dated 10.10.2011, held that the management of the sugar factory falls within the purview of the Permanent Status Act. It was further determined that workmen employed

¶53

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

¶54

5/24

¶55

W.P. Nos. 19742 & 19746 of 2020

¶56

in the factory who complete 480 days of service within a span of 24 calendar months are entitled to permanent status. Accordingly, the authority directed that the individuals listed in the annexure be granted permanency. The annexure contained a list of 108 names.

¶57

The management filed a writ petition before this Court challenging the order of the authority. After hearing both sides, this Court, by an order dated 31.10.2011, dismissed the writ petition and upheld the authority’s decision granting permanent status to the workmen. In the judgment reported in CDJ 2011 MHC 5561, the operative portion in paragraphs 36 and 37 states as follows:

¶58

“ 36. Further, in the present case, when a direction was issued by this court in W.P.No.14700 of 2008, dated 4.9.2008, this court had directed the parties to act according to the order made by the first respondent and till such time the engagement of these workmen was directed to be continued.

¶59

37. In the light of the above factual matrix and the legal precedents set out above, this court do not find any case made out for interfering with the impugned order. Hence the writ petition will stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.”

¶60

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

¶61

6/24

¶62

8.

¶63

W.P. Nos. 19742 & 19746 of 2020

¶64

After this Court passed its order, the management took the position

¶65

that they had published a seniority list of casual laborers (CLR) on 01.10.2012. In that list, the respondent in the first writ petition, C. Boopathy (P.F. No. 2069), was listed at Sl. No. 211, while the respondent in the second writ petition, P. Sankar (P.F. No. 2063), was listed at Sl.

¶66

No. 230. However, on 15.03.2013, the management issued a notice publishing a revised seniority list. In that revised list, against the names of C. Boopathy (P.F. No. 2069) and P. Sankar (P.F. No. 2063), the following remark was made in Tamil:

¶67

“bjhlu;e;J gzpf;F tuhjjhy; ePf;fk; bra;ag;gLfpwhu;”

¶68

This means that they had not been reporting to work continuously, and as a result, their names were removed from the list.

¶69

The notice further stated that if any workman had objections, they

¶70

must submit them within seven days, failing which the list would be finalized. Notably, the list contained 86 names, and for some individuals, the management specified that they were not covered by the court order. This plainly means that the names of the two contesting respondents were indeed covered by the court’s order. Subsequently, on 21.12.2013,

¶71

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

¶72

7/24

¶73

W.P. Nos. 19742 & 19746 of 2020

¶74

the management published a third list, temporarily appointing 71 workers under various categories, with those possessing specific qualifications being assigned designated roles.

¶75

Upon realizing that he had not been considered for appointment despite the court's order, the respondent, C. Boopathy, raised an industrial dispute before the Government Labour Officer, alleging that his services had been terminated with effect from 08.12.2012. Similarly, the respondent, P. Sankar, filed a petition claiming that his services had been terminated with effect from 12.01.2013. As the Conciliation Officer was unable to mediate a resolution, he issued a failure report dated 13.03.2014. Based on this failure report, both workmen filed claim statements before the Labour Court, Salem. Their disputes were registered as I.D. No. 199 of 2014 and I.D. No. 209 of 2014, respectively, and notices were issued to the petitioner management.

¶76

Before the Labour Court, Salem, the management filed a reply asserting that, in compliance with the High Court’s order, a seniority list had been published. However, since the respondent had ceased reporting

¶77

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

¶78

8/24

¶79

W.P. Nos. 19742 & 19746 of 2020

¶80

for work, his name was omitted from the list. In paragraph 7 of the reply,

¶81

the management stated as follows:

¶82

“7. …khz;g[kpF brd;id cau;ePjpkd;wj;jpy; 149712009 vd;w upl; kDtpd; kPjhd cj;jutpy; kDjhuu;fSf;F bjhlu;e;J gzp tH';f ntz;Lk; vd cj;jutpl;Ls;sJ/ mjd;go kDjhuUk; gzpf;F tUtJ flikahFk;/ Mdhy; kDjhuu; bjhlu;e;J gzpf;F tuhky; Kd;dwptpg;gpd;wp gzpapypUe;J epd;W bfhz;lJ kl;Lky;yhky; nkw;fz;l upl;kDtpd; kPjhd cj;jut[g;go 51 rp/vy;/Mu;/ bjhHpyhsu;fis mtu;fsJ fy;tp kw;Wk; bjhHpy;El;g jFjpapd; mog;gilapy; gzp epue;juk; bra;a[k; Kd;g[ 15/03/2013k; njjpapy; mwptpg;g[ gyiffspy; Kiwahf Kd;dwptpg;g[ bra;J mjd; gpd;dnu bjhlu;e;J gzpg[upe;j 51 rp/vy;/Mu;/ bjhHpyhsu;fis gzp epue;juk; bra;jJ/ 51 CLR jpdf;Typj; bjhHpyhsu;fSf;F gzp epakd cj;jut[ tH';fpa gpd;du; fhyk; fle;J kDjhuu; bjhHpyhsu; mYtyuplk; jdf;F epu;thfk; gzp tH';ftpy;iy vd;W bgha;ahf ,uz;L tUl';fs; fHpj;J ,e;j tHf;fpid jhf;fy; bra;Js;shu;/ kDjhuu; 08/12/2012 Kjy; mtnu jd;dpr;irahf ntiyf;F tuhky; ,Ue;jjhy; mtUf;F ,uz;l tUlk; fHpj;J ntiynah gpd; rk;gsnkh nfhu cupik ,y;iy/ vdnt kDjhuu; kDit js;Sgo bra;a[khW nfl;Lf; bfhs;fpnwhk;/ ”

¶83

A similar counter statement was filed in the case of the other workman also.

¶84

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

¶85

9/24

¶86

W.P. Nos. 19742 & 19746 of 2020

¶87

The Labour Court, Salem, conducted separate trials for both disputes. In I.D. No. 199 of 2014, the workman testified as PW1 and submitted six documents, which were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. On behalf of the management, Ravindran, the Office Manager, was examined as RW1, and another individual, Rajendran, was examined as RW2. Similarly, in I.D. No. 209 of 2014, the respondent, P. Sankar, examined himself as PW1, while the same witnesses, Ravindran and Rajendran were examined by the management.

¶88

During cross-examination, RW1, Ravindran, the Office Manager, candidly admitted that he joined duty on 03.03.2016 and was not in service at the time when the two respondents were employed or when the counter statement was filed in the industrial dispute. He also provided a straightforward response regarding the termination of the two respondents. In cross-examination, he stated as follows:-

¶89

“…… …. kDjhuu; Casual Labour” vd;gjhy; gzpf;Fj; njitg;gLk; nghJ kl;Lk;jhd; vLj;Jf; bfhs;nthk;

¶90

10/24

¶91

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

¶92

W.P. Nos. 19742 & 19746 of 2020

¶93

vd;gjhy; gzpePf;fk; vd;w nfs;tpf;nf ,lkpy;iy/ kDjhuu; bjhlu;ghd tHf;F Fwpj;j tpgu';fs; vJt[k; vdf;F neuoahf bjupahJ vd;why; rupjhd;/ ep/rh/M/5y; kDjhuu; bjhlu;e;J gzpf;F tuhjjhy; ePf;fk; bra;ag;gLtjhf Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sJ vd;why; rup/ mjd;go kDjhuu; 15/03/2013 njjpapy; gzpePf;fk; bra;ag;gl;lhu;/ ep/rh/M/5y; kDjhuu; ve;j njjp Kjy; gzpf;F tutpy;iy vd;gJ Fwpg;gplg;gltpy;iy vd;why; rupjhd;/ kDjhuu; Miyg; gzpahsu;fs; vd;why; Miyapy; gzpg[upaf;FToa casual Labour kDjhuu; Casual Labour vd;gjw;F mtUf;F ve;j cj;jut[k; bfhLf;fg;gltpy;iy/ kDjhuu; Casual Labour Mf gzpf;F mku;j;jg;gl;lhu; vd;gjw;F Mtz';fs; vJt[k; ePjpkd;wj;jpy; bra;ag;gl;Ls;sjh vd;why; ,y;iy/////////ru;f;fiu Miy bjhHpw;rhiyfspd; rl;lg;go ,af;fg;gLfpwJ vd;why; rup/ kDjhuu; gzpf;F Mg;brd;l; Mfp tUtjhf mtUf;F epiyahizfspd; fPH; Fw;wr;rhl;Lf; Fwpg;ghiz vJt[k; bfhLf;fg;gltpy;iy vd;why; rup/ epiyahizfSf;F cl;gl;L mwpt[g;g[ bfhLj;J tprhuiz bra;J gzp ePf;fk; bra;ag;gltpy;iy vd;why; rup/ ep/rh/M/5 cj;jut[ kDjhuUf;F mDg;glnth rhu;t[ bra;ag;glnth ,y;iy vd;why; rupjhd;/ epiyahizfs; kw;Wk; bjhHpw;rhiyfs; rl;lj;jpd; mog;gilapy; gzp bra;af;Toa bjhHpyhspf;F Tl;Lwt[ r';fr; rl;lk; bghUe;jhJ vd;why; rup///////bjhHpw;rhiyfs; Jiz jiyik Ma;thsu; bjhlu;r;rpahd 24 khj';fspy; 480 ehl;fs; bjhlu;e;J gzp bra;J Koj;Js;sjhy; 01/03/2008 Kjy; gzp epue;jpuk; bra;J ep/rh/M/7 cj;juit gpwg;gpj;Js;shu; vd;why; rup/////

¶94

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

¶95

11/24

¶96

W.P. Nos. 19742 & 19746 of 2020

¶97

Mdhy; k/rh/M/4 KJepiyg; gl;oay; mwptpg;gpy; kDjhuu; bgau; ,lk; bgw;Ws;sJ vd;why; rup/ kDjhuu; ep/rh/M/5 cj;jutpd; go gzpePf;fk; bra;ag;gl;l gpwF mtu; kPz;Lk; epu;thfj;jplk; vg;nghJ ntiy nfl;lhu; vd;gJ bjupa[kh vd;why; bjupahJ/ 04/01/2013y; ntiy nfl;L kDjhuu; gjpt[j; jghy; K:yk; epu;thfj;jpw;F fojk; vGjp epu;thfk; bgw;Wf; bfhz;Ls;sJ vd;why; rup/ 04/01/2013 njjpapl;l fojk; kw;Wk; xg;g[jy; ml;il k/rh/M/2 23/01/2013 ntiy nfl;L fojk; vGjp epu;thfk; bgw;Wf; bfhz;Ls;s;J vd;why; rup/ 23/01/2013 njjpapl;l fojk; kw;Wk; xg;g[jy; ml;il k/rh/M/3 vd;dplk; fhl;lg;gLtJ/ ”

¶98

Similar evidence was adduced in I.D.No.209 of 2014.

¶99

The Labour Court issued two separate awards dated 29.07.2019, allowing the claims of both respondents. In paragraph 8 of the impugned awards, the Labour Court held as follows:

¶100

“8. Thus from the cross examination of RW1 and RW2, it is found that the Petitioner who has joined with the Respondent in the year of 2000 and worked till 2012 was terminated from service without following natural justice and further the Respondent has not given any reply to Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 which are the letters sent by the Petitioner to the Respondent for his reinstatement along with salary. Under the above facts and circumstances and

¶101

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

¶102

12/24

¶103

W.P. Nos. 19742 & 19746 of 2020

¶104

cumulative analysis of the facts of this case, this court of the view the oral termination of the Petitioner on 08.12.2012 is against natural justice and is hereby set aside. Further, the Respondent is directed to reinstate the Petitioner along with back wages. No costs.”

¶105

The present writ petitions have been filed by the management challenging these two awards. Although the affidavit raised contentions that the Co-operative Societies Act is a special law and, therefore, an industrial dispute cannot be raised under the Industrial Disputes Act, such arguments can no longer be sustained before this Court at this stage. Another contention put forth was that casual laborers are not entitled to regularization, relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Uma Devi’s case (2006 (4) SCC 1). However, in the present case, regularization was ordered after an earlier round of litigation, and it was based on a specific state enactment—Tamil Nadu Act 46 of 1981—which expressly provides that a worker who completes 480 days of service within 24 calendar months is eligible for permanency. The order of the competent authority granting such permanency was upheld by this Court in the very same case by judgment dated 31.10.2011. Even prior to that, this Court had issued a direction on 04.09.2008 for compliance with the competent

¶106

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

¶107

13/24

¶108

W.P. Nos. 19742 & 19746 of 2020

¶109

authority’s order. Given these binding precedents, it is now far too late for the management to raise such contentions, which are untenable and without legal foundation.

¶110

The learned counsel, in conclusion, relied on the judgment of this Court dated 22.09.2023 in W.P. No. 20267 of 2023 and a batch of related cases concerning the petitioner management and similarly placed workmen who had secured awards in their favour, directing reinstatement, continuity of service, and back wages. While disposing of the batch of writ petitions, the learned judge, in paragraphs 21, 22, 23 and 24, issued the following directions:

¶111

“21. …………The Labour Court has elaborately dealt with the issue and had granted the benefit of reinstatement in favour of the workmen, which is based on sound and justifiable reasoning and the said finding does not require any interference at the hands of this Court. Therefore, the workmen herein are entitled to regularisation as ordered by the Labour Court.

¶112

22. Now the next issue which requires determination is with regard to the direction of the Labour Court ordering reinstatement of the workmen with continuity of service and backwages.

¶113

23. The order of the Labour Court granting reinstatement to the workmen herein from the date of their termination is just and proper and no interference is warranted with

¶114

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

¶115

14/24

¶116

W.P. Nos. 19742 & 19746 of 2020

¶117

the same. However, at the same time, it should not be lost sight of that the petitioner industry is a seasonal industry, which is operable during the period when sugarcane is cultivated and available. The whole functioning of the petitioner industry is based on cultivation and monsoon. Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that the petitioner industry is a seasonal industry and its crushing operations would only be available subject to the availability of raw materials, viz., sugarcane.

¶118

24. Keeping in mind the nature of the industry of the petitioner and it is dependent upon variable factors, which are beyond the control of the petitioner industry, this Court is of the considered view that while the workmen herein are entitled for reinstatement and regularisation of their services with continuity of service from the date of their termination, however, to meet the ends of justice to either side keeping in mind that it causes no injury to either side and at the same time it works benefit to both the parties, importing the concept of ‘No Work – No Pay’, this Court holds that the workmen would not be entitled to backwages as ordered by the Labour Court .”

¶119

The learned counsel urged this Court to adopt the reasoning set forth in

¶120

the order passed by the Single Bench concerning the same management.

¶121

On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent workmen referred to his counter affidavit and defended the award, asserting that it was justified. He urged this Court not to interfere with either the findings

¶122

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

¶123

15/24

¶124

W.P. Nos. 19742 & 19746 of 2020

¶125

or the relief granted by the Labour Court in the impugned awards,

¶126

emphasizing that the power under Article 226 is limited. In support of his argument, he cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in Iswarlal Mohanlal Thakkar v. Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited & Anr. , reported in 2014 (6) SCC 434, and relied on the following passage:

¶127

“10. ……… The High Court has not applied its mind in setting aside the judgment and award of the labour court in exercise of its power of judicial review and superintendence as it is patently clear that the labour court has not committed any error of jurisdiction or passed a judgment without sufficient evidence. The impugned judgement and order of the High Court deserves to be set aside and the award and judgment of the labour court be restored. ”

¶128

Under normal circumstances, this Court would have directed compliance with the two impugned awards, granting the workmen reinstatement with back wages. However, another learned judge of this Court had previously interfered with the grant of back wages, reasoning that a sugar mill is a seasonal industry and that workmen may not have continuous employment throughout the year, except during the crushing seasons. This reasoning, however, is inconsistent with the present case. When the petitioner management earlier challenged the order of the

¶129

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

¶130

16/24

¶131

W.P. Nos. 19742 & 19746 of 2020

¶132

competent authority under Tamil Nadu Act 46/81 before this Court, one of the contentions raised was that, by virtue of Section 1(3) of the Tamil Nadu Act 46/81, the petitioner mill was excluded from the provisions of the Permanent Status Act.

¶133

Section 1(3) of the Tamil Nadu Act 46/81 reads as follows:- “It applies to every industrial establishment (not being an establishment of a seasonal character or in which work is performed only intermittently) in which not less than fifty workmen were employed on any day of the preceding twelve months. If any question arises whether an industrial establishment is of a seasonal character or whether work is performed therein only intermittently, the decision of the Government thereon shall be final:

¶134

Provided that the Government may, by notification, apply the provisions of this Act to any industrial establishment employing such number of workmen less than fifty as may be specified in the notification.”

¶135

Notwithstanding this exemption, this Court, in the judgment reported in CDJ 2011 MHC 5561 , pertaining to the same management, held that the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 46/81 are applicable to a sugar mill. It was further ruled that any worker who completes 480 days

¶136

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

¶137

17/24

¶138

W.P. Nos. 19742 & 19746 of 2020

¶139

of employment within a span of 24 calendar months is entitled to be

¶140

made permanent. In paragraphs 29, 31, and 32, the Court held as follows:

¶141

“29 ……… in the present case, since there is no authoritative order by the Government in respect of the petitioner mill under Section 25-A or Section 25-K of the I.D. Act or under Section 1(3) of the Conferment of Permanent Status Act, the court cannot presume that the Government had gone into the issue and decided the issue in respect of the petitioner mill. The letter dated 20.7.1998 issued by the Industries Department cannot be said to be a statutory order in terms of the two enactments. In the absence of the authoritative order from a competent authority, the court cannot presume that the entire operation of the petitioner mill is of a seasonal character.

¶142

30………

¶143

31.On the contrary, the first respondent on being directed to consider the issue on merits by the order of this court in W.P.No.14700 of 2008, dated 04.09.2008 referred elsewhere, the authority clearly held that the workmen are not only working during the crushing season for maintenance and operation work, but also during off season for the plant maintenance and repair of machineries throughout the year. Therefore, the exception relied on by the petitioner under Section 1(3) cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner management. Even the judgment relied on in Badhili Dina Cooli Thozhilalar Munnetra Sangam's case (cited supra) has no application to the case on hand.

¶144

32.But, in this context, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Workmen of Vanivilas Sugar Factory's case (cited supra) will have direct application. The Supreme Court has set aside the Government order declaring the sugar mill is of seasonal

¶145

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

¶146

18/24

¶147

W.P. Nos. 19742 & 19746 of 2020

¶148

character under Section 25-K, which terminology is also borrowed under Section 1(3). In fact, the reason for appointing these workmen on non permanency basis is even explained in paragraph 6 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, which reads as follows:

¶149

“6. .Only as a stop gap arrangement to meet the needs of administration, the Management, bearing in mind the financial constrains which the industry would face on account of permanent recruitments, deemed it fit and proper that appointment could be made on a contract basis as provided under the bylaws of the sugar mills.”

¶150

Hence the contention that in view of Section 1(3) workers are not entitled for the benefit cannot be accepted. The said contention is rejected”

¶151

It was only after this directive that the management of the mill

¶152

began implementing the order and granted permanent status to several workmen. However, those who were left out were compelled to approach the Labour Courts individually, leading to disputes such as the ones in the present writ petitions. The documents submitted before the Labour Court in these cases, particularly Ex.R4, Ex.R5, and Ex.R6, clearly indicate that these workmen were not only engaged in the cane yard but were also employed as semi-skilled and unskilled workers in regular employment, depending on their qualifications. It is also important to

¶153

note that majority of the workmen had acquired skills through ITI and 19/24

¶154

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

¶155

W.P. Nos. 19742 & 19746 of 2020

¶156

diploma certifications, and that a sugar mill, in addition to seasonal workers, employs regular workers as well. Thus, when the learned judge made certain observations in the earlier case, these critical facts were not brought to his attention.

¶157

Apart from the fact that these workers do not fall under the category of seasonal workers in the traditional sense, this Court has no discretion to interfere with the two mandamus orders previously issued. The first was in W.P. No. 14700 of 2008 , dated 04.09.2008, where Justice Jyothimani directed the petitioner management to comply with the decision of the competent authority under Tamil Nadu Act 46/81. Pursuant to this, the competent authority, by an order dated 10.10.2011, directed that 108 workers be granted permanent status with immediate effect. That means that these workers became entitled to all relief from the date of the competent authority’s order, i.e., 10.10.2011. That order was subsequently upheld by this Court through an order dated 31.10.2011, reported in CDJ 2011 MHC 5561 .

¶158

Unfortunately, the counsel representing the management failed

¶159

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

¶160

20/24

¶161

W.P. Nos. 19742 & 19746 of 2020

¶162

of 2023

¶163

to inform this Court that the order dated 22.09.2023 in W.P. No. 20267

¶164

of 2023 and the batch cases had been the subject of an appeal and had been addressed by a Division Bench. This omission is particularly concerning, given that the very same management was the appellant in all those appeals and should have properly instructed their counsel.

¶165

24 . On discovery by this court, it is seen that the Division Bench, upon hearing the management’s appeal in a batch of writ appeals, including W.A. No. 2645 of 2024 and related cases, dismissed all the appeals by a common order dated 14.11.2024, thereby affirming the order of the learned Single Judge. Unfortunately, the workmen did not challenge the portion of the order that denied them back wages. As a result, the Division Bench, while upholding the Single Judge’s order, made the following observation in paragraph 11 of its common order dated 14.11.2024:

¶166

“ 11. The learned single Judge has refused back wages. That would only mean that the workmen will not be entitled to the back wages till the date of award. Once award is passed, they are entitled to reinstatement and therefore, the employer would be liable to pay wages from the date of the award and the wages shall be paid to the employees within

¶167

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

¶168

21/24

¶169

W.P. Nos. 19742 & 19746 of 2020

¶170

a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

¶171

Although this was a case where it would have been appropriate to disagree with the learned Single Judge's decision to deny back wages— especially since, under normal circumstances, these two workmen would have been entitled to them—this court nonetheless bound by duty to follow the order of the Division Bench, which affirmed the Single Judge’s ruling.

¶172

Under these circumstances, the two writ petitions lack merit and are accordingly dismissed. Consequently, W.P. No. 19742 of 2020 and W.P. No. 19746 of 2020 shall stand dismissed. As a result, all connected Miscellaneous Petitions— W.M.P. Nos. 24386 of 2020, 24389 of 2020, and 2485 of 2024 —shall also stand closed. No costs. In light of the dismissal of the writ petitions, the management is directed to reinstate the two respondents within four weeks from today and to pay their back wages from the date of the award, i.e., 29.07.2019, without compelling them to initiate further execution proceedings.

¶173

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

¶174

22/24

¶175

W.P. Nos. 19742 & 19746 of 2020

¶176

06.03.2025

¶177

ay

¶178

Index: Yes / No Speaking Order / Non-speaking Order Neutral Citation : Yes / No