Cooperative sugar mills cannot seek exemption from the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status) Act, 1981 unless the government had declared them to be ‘seasonal industries' by following the procedures contemplated either under the 1981 Act or the Industrial Disputes Act, the Madras High Court has held.
Justice K. Chandru passed the ruling while dismissing a writ petition filed by the Special Officer of Salem Cooperative Sugar Mills at Mohanur in Namakkal district challenging an order passed by the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories on June 24, 2009 to grant permanent status to 37 workers engaged by the mill for technical work. The Special Officer had strongly relied upon a Government letter addressed to the Indian National Trade Union Congress president attached to South Arcot District Cooperative Sugar Mills Workers and Staff Federation, Vellore on July 20, 1998 wherein it was stated that a sugar industry was a seasonal industry.
Rejecting the officer's contention, the judge said that a government letter written in response to a representation given by a Trade Union letter could not form the basis for categorising an industry in one way or the other. Such categorisation could be done only by following the procedures enumerated under the relevant statutes which govern the subject.
He also pointed out that even the Government letter itself categorically stated that “the regular workers (in sugar mills) will be given employment throughout the year and the seasonal workers will be given employment only during the period of crushing operation.” It shows that the workers were being engaged throughout the year.
“Even if a particular activity, such as crushing, of the sugar mill is held to be seasonal, it does not automatically make the other department also seasonal if it is proved that this department is working round the year,” the judge said and pointed out that the 37 employees were engaged for plant maintenance and repair of machineries through the year.
On the other contention of the Special Officer that the 37 employees had failed to prove that they had been continuously engaged for 480 days within 24 calendar months in order to claim permanent status, the judge said the obligation to prove such fact was not only on the employees, the employer too had the obligation to disprove the claim by producing the attendance registers.
“A mere denial without producing necessary documents will not enable the management to contend regarding the onus of proof,” Mr. Justice Chandru said and pointed out that the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories had concluded that the management had given certain breaks in the service of the 37 employees with the intention of defeating their right for permanency.
