TAMIL NADU HANDICRAFTS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED Vs. INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES RANGE NO II MADURAI 2

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the proceedings of the first respondent dated 9.4.1997, Tamil Nadu Handicrafts Development Corporation Limited represented by its Secretary has filed the above writ petition.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder: THE brass Artware and Handicrafts Unit at Madurai is managed by the second petitioner herein. THE products are manufactured by the piece rate earners who come over to the work shed to whom the raw materials and other facilities are provided who according to their ability and the design given would manufacture the handicrafts and earn the payment for the same and leave the premises. THEre is no compulsion that they shall not work anywhere not it is mandatory that they shall come and work exclusively for petitioners. It is purely a temporary arrangement between the persons who could turn out the handicrafts from raw materials by utilising the facilities provided by the second petitioner. THEy used to be called as piece rate workers whose payment is fixed as per the production which they turn out of the raw material supplied to them. THEy can absent any number of days and there is no need to even inform the same to the 2nd petitioner. In short they are the freelance artisans who do the work as per their will and pleasure. THE second respondent claims to have represented 23 piece rate payment earners and the second respondent seems to have preferred a letter dated 6.2.1997 to the first respondent who without furnishing the copy of such a representation sent a letter dated 17.3.1997 so as to enable the second petitioner herein to appear before him for an enquiry on 31.3.1997. THE enquiry has been postponed and finally adjourned to 7.4.1997. Inspite of specific request for supplying copy of the representation dated 6.2.1997 of the second respondent herein, the first respondent, without any enquiry proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 9.4.1997. THE enquiry said to have been conducted is false and contrary to the truth. THE second petitioner never attended the enquiry as submitted. THE first respondent has no jurisdiction or power to look into the issue raised by the second respondent inasmuch as the representation of the second respondent is not about workmen within the meaning of Section 2(4) of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent status to Workmen) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Further, the petitioners herein are not the employers within the meaning of Section 2(1) of the Act. THEy were not employed by the petitioners and on the contrary, they are piece rate earners and the payment is made as per the production carried out by them. No service Rules of the Corporation is applicable to them. Hence, the very Act is not applicable as far as the issue raised by the respondents are concerned.

(3.) ON the other hand. Miss. R. Vaigai, learned counsel for the second respondent would contend that the petitioner has not raised objection regarding applicability of the Act. She contended that in the light of the various provisions contained in Rules 3 to 6 of the said Rules, no application is required and detailed enquiry is also not contemplated as claimed by the petitioner. She further contended that inasmuch as the petitioner Corporation failed to comply with the statutory mandates and on the basis of the records and after considering the claim of both parties, the authority has passed the impugned order; accordingly there is no merit in the writ petition.