Date : 25/11/2021

To
Attur Agricultural Producers

Co-op, Marketing Society Limited

Pudupettai Post

Attur, Salem District

Legal Opinion is sought by the Attur Agricultural Producers Co-operative

Marketing Society with regard to the W.A. No. 1460/2013 and M.P. No. 1/2013 of
the order dated 26.07.2021 which was in favour of the employees.

Documents perused :

a) Application by the employees on 6/11/2001

b) Counter statement filed by the Agricultural society

c) Order passed by the 1st respondent(Labour Inspector) on 5/5/2004

d) Affidavit in W.P.No. 17355 of 2005

e) Writ petition W.P.No. 17355 of 2005

f) Impugned order -27/11/2012

g) Writ appeal W.A.N.o. 1460/2013 and M.P.No.1/2013

FACTS

1. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the employees therein
had filed an application before the 1st respondent, seeking conferment of
permanent status in the Agricultural society, and by the impugned order
dated 05.05.2004, that relief has been granted with the reference to 39
workmen.

2. Aggrieved against the same, a petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India praying for issue of writ off Certiorari to call for the
records on the file of the

Labour Inspector, Authority under Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment

(Conferment of Permanent Status) Act of 1981 in Na.Ka. No. 6737 of 2001
and quash the order dated 05.05.2004 passed therein.This writ petition is
filed challenging the order of the Labor Inspector, the 1st respondent.

3. According to the learned counsel for the Management, they are not direct
employees and also that the cooperative society and the employees do nor
form a master servant relationship. In addition, the employees are employed
on piece rate basis and their job is confined to loading and unloading. To
add on, as far as the petitioner society is concerned , employees can be
accommodated with reference to the cadre strength sanctioned. As per the
order of the Labour Inspector, permanent status has been given with
reference to 39 workers and consequently, the order cannot be given effect
to. Apart from this, relying on the judgement rendered in the W.P. No. 3274 of
2004, dated 25.09.2008, the counsel for the petitioner has stated that the
respondents have not complied with the conditions stated in the said
judgement. Consequently, they are not entitled to the relief sought.

4. According to the learned counsel for the workmen, the employees have
been issued with I.D cards and unless they are employees of the society, the
question of giving identity cards does not arise. Apart from this, no other
individual, except the members can be permitted to do this loading and
unloading work. Based on this contention, the learned counsel sought the
dismissal of the writ petition. The court, after considering the arguments of
the both the parties dismissed the writ petition

5. A W.A. No.1460/2013 and M.P.No.1/2013 has been directed against the

order dated 27.11.2012 made in W.P. No. 17355/2005 by a learned single
judge of the court. To add on, the learned counsel appearing for the
Management would submit that the workmen, are not entitled for any relief
as against the management herein as there was no contract of employment
between the management and the employees. He states that this aspect has
been overlooked by both the Labour Inspector, an authority under the Tamil
Nadu Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status) Act of 1981 and also
the learned single judge of this court. Furthermore, there has been no oral
and documentary evidence that the employees have worked for continuous
240 days within 12 calendar months, and therefore the impugned order
passed by the learned single judge is erroneous. Hence the same is also
liable to be interfered with, he pleaded.

6. The learned counsel for the management also pertinently contemplated

that the employees do not come under the definition of workmen under
section 2(4) of the “Permanency Act” since the society does fall under an
Industrial establishment but stands out yo be a society, therefore the
impugned order passed by the learned single Judge is liable to be set aside,
he pleaded.

7. Heard Mr.T. Arunkumar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the

Labour Inspector and Mr K.V. Shanmuganathan, learned counsel for the
employees 2 to 10 , 12 to14, 17 to 20, 22,26,30,32,33 and 40. The learned
counsel for the workmen have taken a stand saying that the employees fall
under marketing society and also that without the work of the employees,
the marketing society cannot function for even a single day. Furthermore, the
respondents 2-40 have also been accommodated to carry out the work of
the appellant society.

8. And also, there has been voluminous evidence to show that the workmen
have continuously worked for 240 days of 12 calendar months , and hence
the learned counsel says that he is unable to find any justification to interfere
with the impugned order.

9. In the result , the Writ appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.

OPINION

1) It is pertinent that the employees are seasonal employees and that they
cannot seek for being a permanent employee.

2) And also, the workers are paid only in the term of wages and not any
fixed amount of salary.

3) And the mere issuance the identity cards cannot be taken as a stand due
to the fact that the identity cards were given to them for the identification
when they come to the society for loading and unloading.

4) It is pertinent to note that this institution being registered under Co-

operatives Societies Act and the society is under the control of the
Registrar of the Co-operatives Society and the service rules and society
by lease governed the conditions and service of the workers and
therefore the making of permanent the service will not apply to this
society but only apply to the Industrial Establishments and also because
the work is only seasonal.

5) Further under Section 149 of Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act,

every employment is made subject to suitability from the list obtained
from the local employment exchange and the private respondents 2-40
are not recruited in this manner and therefore an appeal regarding this
can be made in the Supreme Court.

6) To add on, the private respondents 2-40 are not within the control of the
society and for the services, there payment t is made to the head under
piece rate and that the respondents are not paid directly by the
management.