PLANTATION LABOUR ASSOCIATION Vs. SENIOR LICENSING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties. This writ petition has been filed by Plantation Labour Association directing the respondent to regularise the services of four workers, namely Smt. Rajalakshmi, Smt.Davamary, Smt. Manimekalai with effect from 1.1.1989 and Selvi Radhika with effect from 1.7.1989.

(2.) In the Coffee Demonstration Farm Coffee Board, a Government of India undertaking, the respondent had engaged 16 workers including the four persons named above for working in the Farm. Four persons named above, as well as others who had worked for a number of years, had claimed regularisation. Ultimately, on the basis of settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the respondent had regularised the services of 10 other workers. Initially one application was filed by Smt. Davamary which was numbered as R.C.No.740/92 under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 claiming benefit and there was a direction to pay the benefits by order dated 9.12.1992. Subsequently, persons named above and another person raised dispute before the Labour Inspector, Coonoor under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent status to the workers) Act, 1981. The Labour Officer, who was the designated authority, enquired into the matter and ultimately by an order dated 6.3.1995 in his Reference No.Na.Ka.No.4703/92 came to the conclusion that Smt. Rajalakshmi, Smt. Davamary and Smt. Manimekalai have worked continuously for more than 480 days, during the period of January 1987 to December 1988 and Selvi Radhika has worked between June 1987 and June 1989. He observed that first three persons named above should be made permanent with effect from 1.1.1989 and Selvi Radhika should be made permanent with effect from 1.7.1989. However,in spite of order passed by the Labour Inspector, which had not been challenged, the respondent did not regularise these persons. The concerned workers filed O.S.SR.No.914/95, but the plaint was rejected on the ground of lack of jurisdiction on 27.4.1995 as the matter was coming within a forum of Industrial Dispute. In the aforesaid background, the writ petition has been filed by the Association espousing the cause of the four affected workers.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent wherein it is indicated that on the basis of settlement, 10 other persons were regularised on the basis of their seniority. While admitting that the present petitioners were working, it has been submitted that these persons were not regularised as they were junior to others and as per the settlement, 10 persons were to be regularised on the basis of seniority. It is further stated that there was no necessity for regularising these workers and financial condition of the Farm was not good and these persons can be regularised if further vacancy arise. The respondent has not denied the fact that an order had been passed under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of permanent status to workmen),Act 1981 nor the validity of such order has been challenged.