IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 18.2.2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. CHANDRU WRIT PETITION NO.4800 OF 2000 Nafed Processed Foods (A unit of National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation India Limited) Crescent Court, II Floor, 963, Poonamallee High Road Chennai – 600 084. ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The Labour Inspector (rep. TNIND Permanent Employees Act), 3rd Circle, Chennai. 2. G. Murugesan 3. N. Pachaiyappan 4. K. Jayaraman 5. R.C.Ramachandran ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the first respondent in E.Nos.336, 337, 338, 339/1998, dated 16.6.1999 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr. S. Vijayadharani For R1 : Ms. Sneha, Government Advocate For R2 to R5 : Mr. Balan Haridass https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E R The petitioner is a Multi-State Co-operative Society. Aggrieved by the order passed by the first respondent in respect of Labour Court in E.Nos.336 to 339/1998, dated 16.6.1999, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. The writ petition was admitted on 22.3.2000. Pending writ petition, this Court granted an order of interim stay on 20.9.2000 directing the petitioner to deposit Rs.3 lakhs before the first respondent and on such deposit, the amount was directed to be invested in approved security. Subsequently, when the matter came up on 4.9.2003, it was informed that the petitioner had already complied with the said condition. Though the workman took up an application to withdraw the said amount at the rate of Rs.75,000/- for each respondents 2 to 5, this Court did not grant the relief, but merely allowed each of the contesting respondents to withdraw the interest periodically. By the impugned order, the first respondent has granted the benefit of Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981, (for short Tamil Nadu Act 46 of 1981) on the footing that respondents 2 to 5 have put in 480 days of service within the period of 24 calendar months. The first respondent is the Inspector and entitled to decide the dispute between the parties in terms of Rule 6 framed under the Tamil Nadu Act 46 of 1981. The contentions raised before this Court are that the petitioner being a Multi-State Co-operative Society is not covered under Section 2(4) of the Tamil Nadu Act 46 of 1981 and the workers have accepted the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. Therefore, the workers are ineligible for any relief. 3. With reference to the first contention, the issue is squarely covered by a judgment of this Court in V.ELAYAPERUMAL VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA, ASAVEERANKUDIKADU BRANCH reported in 2007(2) LLN 212. In that case, an identical question came up for consideration as to whether the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, which automatically exempted the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 46 of 1981 came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court, to which I was a member (K.Chandru,J.,) and in paragraphs 12 and 13, the Division Bench held as follows:- " 12. From a conjoint reading of Section 2(6) with Section 2(3) of the Shops Act, it is seen that the bank comes within the field of "commercial establishment" included in " the establishment" falling under CL(e) of Sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the Permanent Status Act. For the purpose of Permanent Status Act, the definition of an "establishment" as defined in the Shops https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Act had alone been borrowed and not the other provisions of the Shops Act. In such a situation, once an "establishment" falls within the definition of "establishment" under Cl (e) of Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Permanent Status Act, the inevitable conclusion is that the provisions of the said Act are applicable in construing the conferment of permanent status to any workman, who fulfills the criteria as laid down under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 thereof, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, unless and until the Government, invoking its power under Section 9 of the Permanent Status Act exempts conditionally or unconditionally any employer or class of employers or any industrial establishments from the provisions thereof. Therefore, once the establishment is defined in the Permanent Status Act by incorporating the definition of establishment in the Shops Act the definition so incorporated in Permanent Status Act become part and parcel of the later Act. 13. The law on the subject is well settled. When an earlier Act or certain of its provisions are incorporated become part and parcel of the later Act as if they had been bodily transposed into it. The incorporation of an earlier Act into a later Act is a legislative device adopted for the sake of convenience in order to avoid verbatim reproduction of the provisions of the earlier Act into the later. But this must be distinguished from a referential legislation which merely contains a reference or the citation of the provisions of an earlier statute. In a case where a statute is incorporated, by reference, into a second statute, the repeal of the first statute by a third does not affect the second. The later Act along with the incorporated provisions of the earlier Act constitute an independent legislation which is not modified or repealed by a modification or repeal of the earlier Act. However, where in later Act there is a mere reference to an earlier Act, the modification, repeal or amendment of the statute that is referred, will also have an effect on the statute in which it is referred. It is equally well settled that the question whether a former statute is merely referred to or cited in a later statute, or whether it is wholly or partially incorporated therein, is a question of construction." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. Therefore, the preliminary objection made by the petitioner society cannot be countenanced by this Court. With reference to the acceptance of voluntary retirement, Mr.Balan Haridas, learned counsel appearing for the workmen contended that they have accepted it without prejudice to the outcome of the writ petition and he has also relied upon the judgment of this Court in S. VIJAYALAKSHMI VS. TAMIL NADU WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINATE BOARD reported in 2006 WLR 91. This Court is not inclined to go into the said issue, as the workmen have already moved the Labour Court with a petition under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act claiming wages on par with the permanent workers till the date of their Voluntary Retirement Scheme. 5. In the light of the same, the parties will work out their right to get both wages on the basis of the outcome of the proceedings pending before the Labour Court. Hence, the writ petition is misconceived and devoid of merits. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. 6. In the light of the writ petition being dismissed, respondents 2 to 5 are entitled to withdraw each Rs.75,000/- together with interest if any accrued without any reference to this Court. Kb Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar To The Labour Inspector (rep. TNIND Permanent Employees Act), 3rd Circle, Chennai. +1 cc to Mr. Balan Haridas, Advocate SR No.6797 KK(CO) SR/27.2.2009 W.P.No.4800 of 2000 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/