http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: SUNNY KURIAKORE & ORS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF KERALA & ORS

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       16/08/1996

BENCH: KIRPAL B.N. (J) BENCH: KIRPAL B.N. (J) VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (7)   476        1996 SCALE  (6)3

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T KIRPAL,J.      The question Which arises in this appeal is whether the provisions  of   the  Plantations   Labour  Act,   1951  are applicable  to   the  rubber  estates  owned  by  the  three appellants herein.      Briefly stated the facts are that there was one estate called Nooracre  Estate’ which  was  owned  and  managed  by Ponmudi Rubbers  Limited, Trivandrum.  Out of  this  estate, 22.10.1960, three  parcels of  land  were  sold.  The  first appellant  purchased   10.28  acres,  the  second  appellant purchased 24.49  acres and  the  third  appellant  purchased 27.14 acres. It is the case of the appellants that after the said purchases,  these estates  are being managed separately and have separate Rubber Board Registrations. The Plantations  Rubber Act,  1951 (hereinaftere referred to as ’the  Principal Act’)  was enacted with a view to provide for the  welfare of labour and to regulate the conditions of work in  the plantations.  Section 1(4) of the Principal Act which specifies the plantations to which the Act applies, as originally enacted, reads as under:      "It applies  in the  first instance      to  all   tea,  coffee  rubber  and      cinchona plantations, but any State      Government  may,   subject  to  the      previous approval  of  the  Central      Government, by  notification in the      Official Gazette,  apply it  to any      other class  of plantations  within      that State."      By  the   Plantations  Labour  (Amendment)  Act,  1960, certain amendments  were made in different provisions of the Principal Act.  In the  present case,  we are only concerned with the  amendments made  in Section  of the Principal Act. The two  material amendments  which were  made were that the existing sub-section  (4) of  Section 1 was substituted by a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

new  sub-section   (4)  and   a  new   sub-section  (5)  was introduced. Sub-section (4) of Section 1 after the amendment reads as under:      "It  applies   to   the   following      plantations, that is to say-      (a) to any land used or intended to      be used  for growing  tea.  coffee,      rubber or cinchona which admeasures      10.117  hectares  or  more  and  in      which thirty  or more  persons  are      employed or  were employed  on  any      day of the preceding twelve months;      (b) to any land used or intended to      be  used   for  growing  any  other      plant,  which   admeasures   10.117      hectares  or   more  and  in  which      thirty   or   more   persons   ’are      employed ’or  were employed  on any      day of the preceding twelve months,      if, after obtaining the approval of      the Central  Government, the  State      Government, by  notification in the      Official Gazette, so directs.      Sub-section    (5)     which    was      introduced by  the  Amendment  Act,      reads as under:      "1 (5) The State Government may, by      notification   in    the   Official      Gazetted declare that all or any of      the provisions  of this  Act  shall      apply also  to  any  land  used  or      intended to be used for growing any      plant referred  to in clause (a) or      clause  (b)   of  sub-section  (4),      notwithstanding that -      (a) it admeasures  less than 10.117      hectares,or      (b) the  number of persons employed      therein is less than thirty .           Provided    that    no    such      declaration  shall   be   made   in      respect   of    such   land   which      admeasured’;   less   than   10.117      hectares  or  in  which  less  than      ’thirty  persons   were   employed,      immediately before the commencement      of this Act."      It  appears   that  the   Government   of   Kerala   by Notification  dated   19.8.72,  in  exercise  of  its  power conferred by  Section 1(5)  of the  Principal Act,  declared that all  the provisions of the Principal Act shall apply to each and  every component  part of  any land  to  which  the provisions of  the Act  were applicable  on the first day of April, 1954,  the date on which the said Act came into force notwithstanding that  such component  parts admeasured  less than 10.117  hectares cf  land or  less than 30 persons were employed in  such a  component part after such land is later on sub-divided  or fragmented  by way  of partition, sale or otherwise.      After the  issuance of  the aforesaid  Notification and inasmuch as  the lands  of the  appellants came  within  the purview of  the said  Act, notices dated 24.9.74 were issued to  the   appellants  requiring  them  to  comply  with  the provisions of the said Act.      The validity  of the  amendment incorporating  the  new

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

Section. 1(5)  of the  Act as  well as  of the  Notification dated 19.8.72  and Notices  dated 24.9.74  was challenged by the appellants  by filing  a Writ Petition in the High Court of Kerala.  The said  Writ Petition  was  dismissed  by  the Single Judge  and the Division Bench dismissed the appeal in limine. Thereafter,  leave to  appeal was  granted  by  this Court.      The only  contention  which  has  been  raised  by  the learned counsel for the appellants is that the amendment Act came  into   force  from   21.11.1960  and,  therefore,  the provisions of  the said  sub-sections would not apply to the appellants’ lands.  The submission  was that the words ’this Act’ in  sub-section (5) referred to the Amendment Act, 1960 and not to the Principal Act, 1951. We find no force in this submission.      Sub-section (4)  of Section  1 of  the Principal Act as originally enacted, made the said Act applicable to all tea, offee, rubber  or cinchona  plantations irrespective  of the size of  the estate.  It was  only with the amendment of the Act in  1960 that  the Act  became applicable  to  all  such plantations if they admeasured 10.117 hectares or more or in which 30  or more  persons were  employed. The effect of new sub section  (4) was  that the  Act would  not automatically apply to those estates which did not fall within the amended provisions of  Section 1(4)  such as  those which admeasured less than  10.117 hectares  or employed less than 30 workers were  exempted.   Power  was,   however,  given   to   State Governments under  the  newly  enacted  sub-section  (5)  of Section 1  that even  those estates  admeasuring  less  than 10.117 hectares  and employing  less than  30  workers,  the provisions of  the Act would be made applicable provided the State Government  made such a declaration by Notification in the official gazette.      The proviso  to sub-section  (5) of  Section t  of  the Principal Act, however, restricted the State Government from making any  such declaration  in respect  of  estates  which admeasured less  than 10.117  hectares or employed less than 30 workers immediately before the commencement of this Act".      Whereas prior  to 1950  the Act applied to all types of plantations described  therein irrespective  of its  size or number of  workmen employed  therein, by  the Amendment Act, 1960, three  classes of  estates were created with reference to the applicability of the Principal Act. By virtue of Sub- section (4)  of Section  1,  the  Act  became  automatically applicable to  the estates  admeasuring 10.117  hectares  or employing 30  or more  persons. Secondly, under Section 1(5) it could  be made  applicable to  smaller  estates  provided notification  to   this  effect  was  issued  by  the  State Government. The  third category  of estates to which the Act was made applicable were those referred to in the proviso of new sub-section (5) namely which admeasured less than 10.117 hectares or employed less than 30 persons immediately before the commencement of the Principal Act.      It is  quite evident  that with  the amendment  in sub- section (4)  of Section  1 the  Act became applicable not to all the  states irrespective of their size and the number of persons employed  but it automatically applied only to those estates which  admeasured 10.117  hectares or employed 30 or more persons provision had to be made with a view to prevent fragmentation  of  the  big  estates  so  as  to  avoid  the applicability of  the  said  Act.  This  was  sought  to  be achieved, by  enacting sub-section  (5) of Section 1 This is also  evident  from  the  statement  of  Objects  &  Reasons accompanying the amendment, the relevant part of which is as follows:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

            OBJECTS AND REASONS           Sub-section  (5)-  Sub-Section      (5) is being, added in Section 1 to      empower  the  State  Government  to      apply all  or any of the provisions      of the  Act to any plantations less      than 10.117  hectares  in  area  or      employing  less  than  30  workers,      subject to  the condition that such      of these  plantations  as  were  in      existence before  the  commencement      of the  Act  will  not  be  brought      within, its scope. This sub-section      thus    seeks    to    check    the      fragmentation  of   plantations  by      employers into  small units  and to      prevent the  establishment of  such      small units  in future  with a view      to bye passing the Act."      The proviso  to Section  1(5) was clearly meant to save from the  operation of the said Act only those estates which were less  than 10.117  hectares or  in which  less than  30 persons were employed.      We see no warrant for interpreting the words "This Act" in the proviso to Section 1(5) as meaning the Amendment Act. Section 2  of the  Amendment Act,  1960  brought  about  the amendments in  Section 1  and provided  that sub-section (4) and (5)  shall be  substituted in  the  Principal  Act.  The proviso is  integral  part  of  sub-section  (5).  With  the insertion of  sub-section (5) in the principal Act the whole of the  sub-section (5)  became a  part of the Principal Act and the  reference to ’this Act’ can only mean the Principal Act of  1951 and  cannot, by  any stretch  of imagination be regarded as meaning the Amendment Act of 1960.      Therefore, the  Kerala High  Court  was  right  in  not granting any  relief to  the appellants as their estates did not fall  within the ambit of proviso to Section 1(5) of the Act. The appeal is accordingly, dismissed with costs.