SUNNY KRUIAKORE AND ORS.

STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

AUGUST 16, 1996

[J.S. VERMA AND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.]

Labour law:

Plantations Labour Act, 1960: Section 1(5) proviso.

Fragmentation of big estates-Prevention of-Prior to amendment of principal Act such big estates sold to different purchasers in smaller units-State Govemment applied provisions of principal Act to such new units-Writ petition filed by purchasers dismissed by High Cowt-Held :

Words "this Act" in proviso to S. 1(5) meant pri11cipal Act of 1951 a11d 11ot A111e11dme11t Act of 1960-High Court rightly refused relief to pur- D chasers-f'la11tations Labour (Amendment) Act, 1960, S. 2.

Sectio11 1(5)-0bject of-Held: to prevent fragmentatio11 of big estates so as to avoid applicability of pri11cipal Act of 1951-Froviso to S. 1(5) saved only those estaces ad111easzuing less than statutory niininutnz area or e111ploy- E ing less than statutory niinintunt nzunber of persons.

There was a big rubber estate out of which three parcels of land were sold. The appellants purchased different parcels of lands. After the pur chases, these estates were being managed separately and had separate Rubber Board Registrations.

The Plantations Rubber Act, 1951 was amended by the Plantations Labour (Amendment) Act, 1960 by which a new sub-section (5) was intro duced in Section 1 of the Principal Act. The State Government issued a notification under Section 1(5) declaring that even those estates which admeasured less than the statutory minimum area would be covered by the provisions of the Principal Act. The proviso to Section l (5) of the

Principal Act, however, restricted the State Government from making any such declaration in respect of estates which admeasured less than the statutory minimum area "immediately before the commencement of this Act". Since the lands of the appellants came within the purview of the H

 A Principal Act, the State Government issued notices to the appellants requiring them to comply with the provisions of the Principal Act.

The appellants filed a writ petitiu.: in the High Court challenging the validity of the amendment incorporating new Section 1(5) of the Principal Act as well as of the notification and the Notices. The said writ petition was dismissed by the High Court. Being aggrieved the appellants preferred the present appeal.

On behalf of the appellants it was contended that on the date the Amendment Act came into force the provisions of Section 1(5) would not C apply to the appellants' lands since the words 'this Act' in the proviso to Section 1(5) referred to the Amendment Act and not the Principal Act.

Dismissing the appeal, this Court

D HELD : 1.1. A provision had to be made with a view to prevent

fragmentation of the big estates so as to avoid the applicability of the Plantations Rubber Act, 1951. This was sought to be achieved by enacting sub-section (5) of Section 1 in the Principal Act. This is also evident from the statement of Objects & Reasons accompanying the Plantations Labour (Amendment) Act, 1960. The proviso to Section 1 (5) was clearly meant to save from the operation of the said Act only those estates which were less than the statutory minimum area or in which less than the statutory minimum number of persons were employed. [714-E-H]

1.2. There is no warrant for interpreting the words 'This Act' in the proviso to Section 1(5) as meaning the Amendment Act. Section 2 of the Amendment Act, 1960 brought about the amendments in Section 1 and provided that sub-sections ( 4) and (5) shall be substituted in the Principal Act. The proviso is an integral part of sub-section (5). With the insertion of sub-section (5) in the Principal Act the whole of the sub-section (5) G became a part of the Principal Act and the reference to 'this Act' can only mean the Principal Act of 1951 and cannot, by any stretch of imagination be regarded as meaning the Amendment Act of 1960. Therefore, the High Court was right in not granting any relief to the appellants as their estates did not fall within the ambit of proviso to Section 1(5) of the Principal Act H of 1951. [715-A-C]

SUNNYKRUIAKOREv. STATE[KIRPAL, J.] 711

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2677 of A 1977.

From the Judgment and Order dated 17.1.77 of the Kerala High Court in W. Application No. 22 of 1972.

Ms. Mana Chakraborty and R.K. Mehta for the Appellants.

M.T. George for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

KIRPAL, J. The question which arises in this appeal is whether the C provisions of the Plantations Labour Act, 1951 are applicable to the rubber estates owned by the three appellants herein.

Briefly stated the facts are that there was one estate called 'Nooracre Estate' which was owned and managed by Ponmudi Rubbers Limited, D Trivandrum. Out of this estate, on 22.10.1960, three parcels of land were sold. The first appellant purchased 10.28 acres, the second appellant purchased 24.49 acres and the third appellants purchased 27.14 acres. It is the case of the appellants that after the said purchases, these estates are being managed separately and have separate Rubber Board Registrations.

The Plantations Rubber Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Principal Act') was enacted with a view to provide for the welfare of labour and to regulate the conditions of work in the plantations. Section 1( 4} of the Principal Act which specifies the plantations to which the Act applies, as originally enacted, reads as under :

"It applies in the first instance to all tea, coffee rubber and cinchona plantations, but any State Government may, subject to the previous approval of the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, apply it to any other class of plantations within that State,"

By the Plantations Labour (Amendment} Act, 1960, certain amend- G ments were made in different provisions of the Principal Act. In the present case, we are only concerned with the amendments made in Section 1 of the Principal Act. The two material amendments which were made were that existing sub-section ( 4} of Section 1 was substituted by a new sub-section ( 4) and a new sub-section (5) was introduced. Sub-sectfon ( 4) of H

A Section 1 after the amendment reads as under :

"It applies to the following plantations, that is to say -

(a) to any land used or intended to be used for growing tea, coffee, rubber or cinchona which •dmeasures 10.117 hectares or more and in which thirty or more persons are employed or were employed on any day of the preceding twelve months;

(b) to any land use or intended to be used for growing any other plant, which admeasures 10.117 hectares or more and in which thirty or more persons are employed or were employed on any day of the preceding twelve months, if, after obtaining the approval of the Central Government, the State Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, so directs."

Sub-section (5) which was introduced by the Amendment Act, reads D as under:

"1(5) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare that all or any of the provisions, of this Act shall apply also to any land used or intended lo be used for growing any plant referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (4), notwithstanding that -

(a) it admeasures less than 10.117 hectares, or

(b) the number of persons employed therein is less than thirty :

Provided that no such declaration shall be made in respect of such land which admeasured less than 10.117 hectares or in which less than thirty persons were employed, immediately before the commencement of this Act."

It appears that the Government of Kerala by Notification dated G 19.8.72, in exercise of its power conferred by Section 1(5) of the Principal Act, declared that all the provisions of the Principal Act shall apply to each and every component part of any land to which the provisions of the Act were applicable on the first day of April, 1954, the date on which the said Act came into force notwithstanding that such component parts ad- H measured less than 10.117 hectares of land or less than 30 persons were

SUNNY KRUIAKOREv. STATE[K!RPAL, J.] 713

employed in such a component part after such land is later on sub-divided A or fragmented by way of partition, sale or otherwise.

After the issuance of the aforesaid Notification and inasmuch as the lands of the appellants came within the purview of the said Act, notices dated 24.9.74 were issued to the appellants requiring them to comply with the provisions of the said Act.

The validity of the amendment incorporating the new Section 1(5) of the Act as well as of the Notification dated 19.8.72 and Notices dated 24.9.74 was challenged by the appellants by filing a Writ Petition in the High Court of Kerala. The said Writ Petition was dismissed by the Single Judge and the Division Bench dismissed the appeal in limine. Thereafter, leave to appeal was granted by this Court.

The only contention which has been raised by the learned counsel

for the appellants is that the amendment Act came into force from 21.11.1960 and, therefore, the provisions of the said sub-sections would not D apply to the appellants' lands. The submission was that the words 'this Act' in sub-section (5) referred to the Amendment Act, 1960 and not to the Principal Act 1951. We find no force in this submission.

Sub-section ( 4) of Section 1 of the Principal Act, as originally E enacted, made the said Act applicable to all tea, coffee, rubber or cinchona plantations irrespective of the size of the estate. It was only with the amendment of the Act in 1960 that the Act became applicable to all such plantations if they admeasured 10.117 hectares or more or in which 30 or more persons were employed. The effect of new sub-section ( 4) was that the Act would not automatically apply to those estates which did not fall F within the amended provisions of Section 1( 4) such as those which admeasured less than 10.117 hectares or employed less than 30 workers were exempted. Power was, however given to State Governments under the newly enacted sub-section (5) of Section 1 that even those estates admeasuring less than 10.117 hectares and employing less than 30 workers, G the provisions of the Act would be made applicable provided the State Government made such a declaration by Notification in the official gazette.

The proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 1 of the Principal Act, however, restricted the State Government from making any such declaration in respect of estates which admeasured less than 10.117 hectares or H

A employed less than 30 workers "immediately before the commencement of this Acf 1 •

Whereas prior to 1960 the Act applied to all types of plantations described therein irrespective of its size or number of workmen employed therein, by the Amendment Act, 1960, three classes of estates were created with reference to the applicability of the Principal Act. By virtue of Sub-section ( 4) of Section 1, the Act became automatically applicable to the estates admeasuring 10.117 hectares or employing 30 or more persons.

Secondly, under Section 1(5) it could be made applicable to smaller estates provided notification to this effect was issued by the State Government.

The third category of estates to which the Act was made applicable were those referred to in the proviso of new sub-section (5) namely which admeasured less than 10.117 hectares or employed less than 30 persons immediately before the commencement of. the Principal Act.

It is quite evident that with the amendment in sub-section ( 4) of D Section 1 the Act became applicable not to all the estates irrespective of their size and the number of persons employed but it automatically applied only to those estates which admeasured 10.117 hectares or employed 30 or more persons. A provision had to be made with a view to prevent fragmentation of the big estates so as to avoid the applicabiJ; ty of the said Act. This E was sought to be achieved by enacting sub-section (5) of Section 1. This is also evident from the statement of Objects & Reasons accompanying the amendment, the relevant part of which is as follows :

OBJECTS AND REASONS

"Sub-section (5)-Sub-Section (5) is being added in Section 1 to empower the State Government to apply all or any of the provisions of the Act to any plantations less than 10.117 hectares in area or employing less than 30 workers, subject to the condition that such of these plantations as were in existence before the commencement of the Act will not be brought within its scope. This sub-section thus seeks to check the fragmentation of plantations by employers into small units and to prevent the establishment of such small units in future \vith a view to bye passing the Act."

The proviso to Section 1(5) was clearly meant to save from the H operation of the said Act only those estates which were less than 10.117

SUNNYKRUIAKOREv. STATE [KIRPAL, J.] 715

hectares or in which less than 30 persons were employed.

We see no \Varrant for interpreting the \Vor<ls "This Act" in the proviso to Section 1(5) as meaning the Amendment Act. Section 2 of the Amendment Act, 1960 brought about the amendments in Section I and provided that sub-sections (4) and (5) shall be substituted in the Principal Act. The proviso is an integral part of sub-section (5). With the insertion B of sub-section (5) in the Principal Act the whole of the sub-section (5) became a part of the Principal Act and the reference to 'this Act' can only mean the Principal Act of 1951 and cannot, by any stretch of imagination be regarded as meaning the Amendment Act of 1960.

Therefore, the Kerala High Court was right in not granting any relief to the appellants as their estates did not fall within the ambit of proviso to Section 1(5) of the Act. The Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed with costs.

v.s.s.

Appeal dismissed.