S. MOSES RAJAIAH & ORS. Vs. GOVT. OF T.N. (REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER & SECY. LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT) & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter comes up on notice of motion. The appellants herein are the petitioners in Writ Petition 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 of Tirunelveli, were accorded the exemption under section 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 36 and 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 Oct. 1980, from maintaining certain registers. On 31 March 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:

(2.) Sri V.R. Rajasekaran, learned Government Advocate, represents the respondents. We ordered notice of motion earlier, taking note of a point urged by Sri 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, those given in the show cause and these given in the impugned Government order of cancellation of the exemption, one finds that there had been no uniformity, no consistency and no specification in expressing the reasons. The petitioners having had the benefit of exemption from the rules concerned for about a decade, if they are to be denied the same, it is better that they are asked to answer specific contingencies and circumstances which do warrant the cancellation of the exemption earlier accorded. It is not permissible to act in this region with any ambiguity in mind especially for expressing the reasons for the action. But, unfortunately this is what has happened in the proceedings of the first respondent. In our view, it is better that there is a delineation of the 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, and the petitioners are called upon to answer them and there could also be a substantiation by the petitioners of their stand before an authority, who could conduct an enquiry in this behalf, after the issuance of the fresh show-cause notice and the obtaining of the replies thereto from the petitioners, affording the requisite opportunity to the petitioners therefor. It is expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the enquiry could be done by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour at Madurai. Our approach to assessment of and answer to the question being different from those of the learned Single Judge, and the factors, discussed by us as above weighing with us, we are obliged to interfere in writ appeal and give suitable directions. Accordingly, this writ appeal is allowed in the following terms:

(3.) On the petitioners making their objections, there shall be an enquiry conducted by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour at Madurai, into the matter, affording adequate opportunity to the petitioners to substantiate their case for maintaining the exemption.