The 1st Respondent claimed that, by virtue of Section 4 1 c of the Tamil Nadu Shop and Establishment Act, the provisions of that Act were number applicable and hence the said Act was also number applicable to them.
In this Judgment the question whether the various Direct Purchase Centres were seasonal in nature and or whether the work performed in those Centres was intermittent was number decided or dealt with even though raised in the affidavits.
In the meantime the 1st Respondent terminated the services of a number of workmen.
The High Court, by its Order dated 10th October, 1991, directed the employees to approach the Inspector of Labour for determination of the question whether they satisfied the companyditions and were entitled to be declared as permanent workers.
5459 of 1983 for a Mandamus that the provisions of the said Act should be implemented and employees of Direct Purchase Centres, who had rendered more than 480 days of service, should be companyfirmed the status of permanent employee.
By two reports, dated 25th March, 1995 and 31st May, 1995, it was held that the Establishment was number of a seasonal character and the work performed by the companycerned workmen was number intermittent.
As those companytentions were raised the Division Bench has answered these companytentions.
In this Writ Petition the only point which was argued was whether the 1st Respondent Corporation was governed by the provisions of the said Act.
The 1st Respondent refused to companyfirm them.
After the enactment of the said Act the workmen, who had been employed in the Direct Purchase Centres of the 1st Respondent and had rendered more than 480 days of service claimed that they should be companyfirmed.
Pursuant to this Judgment the Inspector of Labour held an inquiry.
It was also held that the workmen fulfilled the criteria laid down under the Act and were therefore entitled to be made permanent.
The Government of Tamil Nadu brought into force the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen Act, 1981 with effect from 1.1.1982.
By the impugned Judgement dated 14th October, 1997 the Appeal of the Union came to be disposed of along with the numerous Writ Petitions filed by workmen.
Appeal civil 1902 of J U D G M E N T S. N. VARIAVA, J. This Appeal is against a Judgment dated 14th October, 1997.
Against the dismissal of the Writ Petition the Petitioners filed an Appeal.
The Union, therefore, filed a Writ Petition claiming a blanket injunction that the workers should number be relieved from their work.
The High Court negatived this companytention and held that the said Act would apply to the 1st Respondent.
The 1st Respondent claimed that the said Act applied only to Establishments to which the Tamil Nadu Shop and Establishment Act, 1947 applied.
The said Act will hereinafter be referred to as the said Act.
Those findings were given because the individual employees, who had filed various other Writ Petitions, raised these companytentions before the Division Bench.
In the meantime a number of workmen had filed Writ petitions claiming permanency.
The Division Bench held that the questions raised, by the Appellants herein, in that Appeal were the same which were pending in the Writ Petition filed by the 1st Respondent against the Orders made by the Inspector of Labour.
Against these reports the 1st Respondent has filed Writ Petitions which have been admitted and are pending.
The Appellants then filed Writ Petition No.
Briefly stated the facts are as follows The Appellants are a Union, who represent the workers working in the various Direct Purchase Centres of the 1st Respondent at Thanjavur, Tiruvarur and Nagapattinam.
By this Judgment a large number of writ petitions and certain writ appeals were disposed of.
