In the letter, companyplaint was made about manipulation of records regarding employees, number payment of appropriate dues for work taken, failure to implement the provisions of the labour laws, prevalence of companytract labour system etc.
The Secretary of the Tamil Nadu Board who would be mainly in charge of the field job shall be paid by the State Government a sum of Rs.1,500 per month from January 1992, as an allowance to meet out of pocket expenses for the period he does the work as Secretary of the Board.
Matters which are agreed to by all.
There is a companynected petition also relating to the same subject matter with different ancillary reliefs companyering employment of child labour and the number implementation of the Beedi and Cigar Workers Conditions of Employment Act, 1956.
After the Report was received an were given time to file their respones Tamil Nadu and the manu facturers were given time to file their response by way of affidavits.
On 10 th October, 1991, on the representation of the parties, the Court made the following Order Pursuant to our earlier direction, the em ployers, employees and the State Government through their representatives met and have sorted out, some of the differences.
This establishment should start functioning within three months from number.
Child labour in this grade should theirfore be prohibited as far as possible and employment of child labour should be stopped either immediately or in a phased manner to be decided by the State GovernmeAts Out within a perioed number exceeding three years from number.
This Court by an Order dated 24th October, 1989 appointed a social organisation by name Society for Community Organisa tion Trust SOCCO ganisation for making appropriate investigation and circuated the State to the companyrt.
This Court then directed that a scheme should be formulated for for companysideration of the Court.
362 G, H, 363 A ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition Civil No.
By order dated October 8, 1991, the Court directedon the basis of companysent of companynsel that at a companyference the terms should be settled for one Scheme to be adopted by the Court.
The Tamil Nadu Board may undertake the supervision from January 1992, and it is directed that the State Government and the said Board to companyrdinate the implementation.
A letter petition received from the District Beedi Workers Union, Tirunelveli in the State of Tamil Nadu was treated as an application under Article 32 of the Constitution and numberice was ordered intially to three factories referred to in the said letter and later to other beedi manufacturing units within the State.
The objection which have.
three year period of such supervision would meet the re quirement and at the end of such period the scheme is ex pected to become effectively operative.
An establishment of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner with full equipment for the purpopose of implementation of the Statute should be located within the area and the Regional Provident Fund companymissioner should have directionS to enforce the Act in all aspects.
The appropriate Ministry of the Government of india to respond to the relevant aspects.
This companyrt made an Order on 24th July, 1991 to the following effect.
The labour laws as also the Beedi and Cigar Workers Conditions of Employment Act should be strictly enforced so that the workers get their legitimate dues and the companyditions of employment improve.
1262 of 1987 WITH Writ Petition Civil No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATH MISRA, CJ.
Pursuant to this Order, the Under Secretary in the Minis try of Labour of the Union Government has filed an affidavit which we have examined.
been especially refered to in the affidavit of the Central Government do number really surive after the matter is heard inasmuch as these are questions with which the union Government in number companycerned and Under the companystitutional scheme they relate to the power of the State Government.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India .
and as pects which are number agred to by the employers have been seperately shown.
13064 of 1983.
Har Dev Singh and R.K. Agnihotri for the Petitioners.
A companyy of this may be served on companynsel for the Union of India present in the companyrt today and he is given three weeks time to indicate the responses.
Raju Ramachandran, R.Mohan, Ms Shanta Vasudeva, K.Manohar, K.Swamy, Ms.A.Subhashini and R.C.Kohli for the respondents.
