S MOSES RAJAIAH Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE matter comes up on notice of motion. THE appellants herein are the petitioners in W.P.No.6193 of 1991.THE respondents herein are the respondents in the writ petition. For the sake of convenience, we are referring to the parties as per their array in the writ petition. THE petitioners, who are manufacturers of beedies in the District Tirunelveli were accorded the exemption under Sec.41 of the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act 32 of 1966, hereinafter referred to as the Act, from the provisions of Sub-Rules (2) and (3) of Rule 36and from the provisions of Sub-rule (2) of rule 28 of the Tamil Nadu Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Rules, 1968, subject to certain conditions, under G.O.Ms.No.2468, Labour and Employment Department, dated 25.10.1980 from maintaining certain registers. On 31.3.1989 the first respondent issued a show cause notice proposing to cancel the exemption granted. THE reasons for cancellation have been expressed in the said show cause notice in the following terms. "It has been reported to the Government that the exemption granted as aforesaid has created an exploitative situation whereby the home workers are denied several statutory benefits available to them and therefore the exemption granted as stated above should cancelled so that the purpose for which the Act and Rules framed thereunder may effectively implemented for the benefit of workmen." THE petitioner replied and thereafter the first respondent by G.O.Ms.No.189, Labour and Employment Department, dated 7. 2.1990 cancelled the exemption. THE reasons for cancellation have been expressed as follows: "In the Government order read above, orders have been issued exempting certain managements to beedi industry from maintaining register of leave with wages under rule and maintenance of muster roll under Rule 36 of the Tamil Nadu Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Rules, 1968. Because of the exemption, the beedi establishments need not maintain the registers mentioned above pertaining to home workers who are predominantly women. In the absence of these registers, statistics regarding the number of women workers employed in this industry are not available and the Inspectors are not able to verify whether the statutory benefits actually due to these workers are made available to them. THE Commissioner of Labour has also reported that the Labour Unions of Beedi Workers and the working women's Forum, Madras, are pressing for the cancellation of the exemption granted to the beedi establishments." THE petitioners put in issue G.O.Ms.No.189 in W.P.No.6193 of 1991.THE learned Single Judge, who heard the writ petition, did not agree with the contention advanced on behalf the petitioners that there was lack of proper opportunity afforded to the petitioners to meet and answer the points put against them. THE learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge.

(2.) MR.V.R.Rajasekaran, learned Government Advocate represents the respondents, we ordered notice of motion earlier, taking note of a point urged by MR.N.G.R.Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners, that while in the show cause notice particular reasons were given and they have been answered, in the ultimate order of cancellation of exemption different reasons have been expressed and the petitioners had no opportunity to advert to them and offer their explanation and had such an opportunity been afforded, they would have convinced that the said reasons are not tenable. The point involved lying in a short compass, we propose to dispose of the writ appeal today itself. From the extracts of the reasons, given in the show cause and those given in the impugned Government Order of Cancellation of the exemption, one finds that there been no uniformity, no consistency and no specification in expressing the reasons. petitioners having had the benefit of exemption from the rules concerned for decade, if they are to be denied the same, it is better that they are asked to answer contingencies and circumstances which do warrant the cancellation of the exemption accorded. It is not permissible to act in this region with any ambiguity in mind especially expressing the reasons for the action. But, unfortunately this is what has happened proceedings of the first respondent. In our view, it is better that there is a delineation specific contingencies and circumstances which warrant the cancellation of the exemption already accorded in a fresh show cause notice to be issued to the petitioners, petitioners are called upon to answer them and there could also be a substantiation petitioners of their stand before an authority, who could conduct an enquiry in this after the issuance of the fresh show cause notice and the obtaining of the replies from the petitioners, affording the requisite opportunity to the petitioners therefor. expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the enquiry could be done Deputy Commissioner of Labour at Madurai. Our approach to, assessment of and answer the question being different from those of the learned single Judge, and the discussed by us as above weighing with us, we are obliged to interfere in writ appeal give suitable directions. Accordingly, this writ appeal is allowed in the following terms. 1.The order of the learned single Judge, dismissing W.P.No.6193 of 1991 is set aside G.O.Ms.No.189, Labour and Employment, dated 7. 2.1990 impugned in the said writ is quashed. 2. The first respondent shall issue a fresh show cause notice to the petitioners setting the specific contingencies and circumstances, which warrant the cancellation exemption earlier accorded to the petitioners, affording adequate opportunity petitioners to make their objections thereto.

(3.) THE Deputy Commissioner of Labour at Madurai on the completion of the enquiry submit the report of the enquiry to the first respondent, furnishing a copy of the same first of the petitioners namely Mr.S.Moses Rajaiah for and on behalf of himself petitioners.