MANAGEMENT GLEM BROOK ESTATE Vs. PLANTATION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the management of a Tea Estate at Yercaud. In this writ petition, they have come forward to challenge an order passed by the first respondent Inspector of Plantations, Yercaud (wrongly described as Plantation Officer), dated 31.5.2007 in directing the management to pay Rs. 2923/-towards payment of maternity benefits and medical bonus. The writ petition was admitted on 6.4.2009. Pending the writ petition, while ordering notice in the stay application returnable by three weeks, an interim stay was granted till then. Subsequently, there is nothing on record to show that the stay order has been extended. Even though the second respondent has been served, she has not chosen to appear either in person or through counsel. The fact that the second respondent is employed in the estate was not denied. Further, the fact that she had delivered a child on 22.7.2005 and subsequently claimed maternity benefit supported by the Doctor's certificate is also not denied.

(2.) When the second respondent made a complaint about the non payment, the first respondent took up the complaint and issued a notice to the petitioner estate in Na.Ka. No. 735/2005. The petitioner estate filed a counter statement stating that the provisions of the Plantations Labour Act as well as the Maternity Benefits Act will not apply. They had never employed 10 or more workers. In view of the non application of the Plantations Labour Act, the provisions of the Maternity Benefits Act also will not apply. Initially, the first respondent by an order dated 30.5.2007 had dismissed the application stating that the provisions of the MB Act, 1961 will not apply. But, however subsequently he had issued a revised order on 31.5.2007 stating that the provisions of the MB Act will apply to the management. In view of the fact that originally the estate was divided as different divisions, i.e., 'B' division and 'C' division, etc., but when minimum wages was made in MW case No. 183 of 2004, the minimum wages authority under Section 20 had granted minimum wages against the management. The said claim was made by more than 10 workers and the amount has also been paid by the estate management. Therefore, it had refused to believe that they had only less than 10 workers and the provisions of the Act will not apply. Thus it had rejected the stand of the management and directed computation of the amount in favour of the second respondent.

(3.) The petitioner raised two contentions, i.e., that the authority was wrong in revising his own order. Secondly, the management were employing only 6 workers. Therefore, the provisions of the Act will not apply.