http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: T.N.  CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPN.  WORKERS UNION

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: T.N.  CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPN.LTD.  & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       28/03/2001

BENCH: S.R.Babu, S.N.Variava

JUDGMENT:

Appeal (civil) 1902      of

     J U D G M E N T S.  N.  VARIAVA, J.

     This Appeal is against a Judgment dated 14th October, 1997. By  this  Judgment a large number of writ petitions  and  certain writ  appeals were disposed of.  Briefly stated the facts are  as follows:   The Appellants are a Union, who represent the  workers working  in  the  various  Direct Purchase  Centres  of  the  1st Respondent  at  Thanjavur,  Tiruvarur   and  Nagapattinam.    The Government  of  Tamil  Nadu  brought into force  the  Tamil  Nadu Industrial  Establishment  (Conferment  of  Permanent  Status  to Workmen)  Act, 1981 with effect from 1.1.1982.  The said Act will hereinafter  be referred to as the said Act.  After the enactment of  the said Act the workmen, who had been employed in the Direct Purchase Centres of the 1st Respondent and had rendered more than 480  days of service claimed that they should be confirmed.   The 1st  Respondent  refused  to confirm them.  The  Appellants  then filed  Writ  Petition No.  5459 of 1983 for a Mandamus  that  the provisions of the said Act should be implemented and employees of Direct  Purchase Centres, who had rendered more than 480 days  of service,  should  be confirmed the status of permanent  employee. In this Writ Petition the only point which was argued was whether the  1st Respondent Corporation was governed by the provisions of the  said  Act.   The 1st Respondent claimed that  the  said  Act applied  only to Establishments to which the Tamil Nadu Shop  and Establishment  Act,  1947  applied.  The 1st  Respondent  claimed that,  by  virtue of Section 4(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu  Shop  and Establishment Act, the provisions of that Act were not applicable and hence the said Act was also not applicable to them.  The High Court  negatived this contention and held that the said Act would apply  to the 1st Respondent.  The High Court, by its Order dated 10th  October,  1991,  directed  the employees  to  approach  the Inspector  of  Labour for determination of the  question  whether they satisfied the conditions and were entitled to be declared as permanent  workers.   In this Judgment the question  whether  the various  Direct  Purchase Centres were seasonal in nature  and/or whether  the work performed in those Centres was intermittent was not  decided or dealt with even though raised in the  affidavits. Pursuant  to  this  Judgment  the Inspector  of  Labour  held  an inquiry.   By  two reports, dated 25th March, 1995 and 31st  May, 1995,  it  was held that the Establishment was not of a  seasonal character and the work performed by the concerned workmen was not intermittent.   It  was also held that the workmen fulfilled  the criteria  laid down under the Act and were therefore entitled  to be  made permanent.  Against these reports the 1st Respondent has filed  Writ  Petitions which have been admitted and are  pending.

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

In  the meantime the 1st Respondent terminated the services of  a number  of workmen.  The Union, therefore, filed a Writ  Petition claiming  a  blanket  injunction that the workers should  not  be relieved from their work.  The Writ Petition, filed by the Union, was  dismissed  by a Single Judge on 10th April, 1997 by  holding that  the Union was not entitled to have a blanket injunction  of the nature sought.  It was held that the employees whose services were terminated would take such action as is available to them in accordance  with law.  Against the dismissal of the Writ Petition the  Petitioners  filed an Appeal.  In the meantime a  number  of workmen  had  filed Writ petitions claiming permanency.   By  the impugned  Judgement  dated 14th October, 1997 the Appeal  of  the Union  came  to  be  disposed of along  with  the  numerous  Writ Petitions  filed  by workmen.  The Division Bench held  that  the questions  raised, by the Appellants herein, in that Appeal  were the same which were pending in the Writ Petition filed by the 1st Respondent  against  the Orders made by the Inspector of  Labour. The  Division  Bench held that the Union had to await  the  final outcome  of those Writ Petitions.  The Division Bench also agreed with  the conclusion of the Single Judge that since the  services of the employees had been terminated, it was for the employees to seek  their  remedies  in  a manner known to  law.   We  find  no infirmity  with  the reasoning of the Division Bench and  see  no reason  to interfere.  Mr.  Sharma submitted that even though the Division  Bench has held that the questions raised in the  Appeal of the Union were the same as those pending in the Writ Petitions filed  by the 1st Respondent, yet the Division Bench has gone  on to  give  a  finding  that the Establishment  is  of  a  seasonal character  and  the  work  is   not  intermittent.   Mr.   Sharma submitted  that  these findings would now come in the way of  the Union  while  defending  the  Writ  Petition  filed  by  the  1st Respondent.  He submitted that this Court should either set aside these  findings  or  clarify that those Writ Petitions  would  be decided  without  taking  those findings into  account.   We  are unable  to  accept these submissions.  Those findings were  given because  the  individual employees, who had filed  various  other Writ  Petitions,  raised  these contentions before  the  Division Bench.   As those contentions were raised the Division Bench  has answered  these  contentions.   None  of the  workmen,  in  whose matters  those findings are given, have come up in Appeal to this Court.  They have accepted those findings.  It is, therefore, not open  for  the Union to claim that those findings should  be  set aside.   In  any  event,  as stated above, the  services  of  the workmen  have  been terminated.  Therefore, even if the said  Act squarely  applied and the Establishment of the 1st Respondent was not  of  a seasonal character and the work was not  intermittent, the  remedy  would  now be to file  the  appropriate  proceedings against  the order of termination.  In this view of the matter no purpose  would  be served by dealing with the correctness of  the finding  given  by  the Division Bench.  We,  therefore,  see  no reason  to interfere.  The Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. There will, however, be no order as to costs.