LexStreak
Read free →
Madras High Court· 25 September 2026

Is a letter of the Principal Secretary to the Government a notification granting exemption under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981?

The District Manager v. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Enforcement)
WA(MD).2017/2025 · 2026:MHC:3941 · W.A.(MD)No.2017 of 2025
Coram: Justice C.V. Karthikeyan · Justice R.Sakthivel
🔖 Save this judgment🔔 Follow Section 3 Tamil Nadu Industrial …📬 Get today's judgments
View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.
Answer

A letter of the Principal Secretary to the Government is not a notification granting exemption under Section 9 of the Permanent Status Act.

No. A letter of the Principal Secretary to the Government is not a notification granting exemption under Section 9 of the Permanent Status Act. The Court held that such a letter can never be termed a pronouncement of a legal principle; at most it is the private opinion of the individual who authored it, and his holding the office of Principal Secretary confers no special status on that opinion. It is not the law of the land and binds neither the Court nor anybody else. When the law directs a particular act to be performed in a particular manner, it should be done only in that manner.

Headnote

Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 — Ss.2(3)(e), 3, 9 — Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 — Ss.2(6), 4(1)(c) — Conferment of permanent status — TASMAC salesmen — Exemption of Government establishments — Letter of the Principal Secretary — Closure of shops — Permanent Status Act, 1981 — S.9 — Exemption — Letter of the Principal Secretary to the Government — Held: A letter of the Principal Secretary to the Government opining that no exemption is required is at most a private opinion of its author; it is not the law of the land, does not bind the Court and is not a notification granting exemption. When the law directs a particular act to be performed in a particular manner, it must be done only in that manner. (¶27, 34) Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 — S.4(1)(c) — Incorporation by reference — Definition of establishment — Held further: Only the definition of establishment is incorporated from the Shops Act into the Permanent Status Act, so the exemption in s.4(1)(c) of the Shops Act is of no consequence, and the Permanent Status Act continues to apply unless exemption is obtained from the State Government under s.9. V. Elayaperumal v. State Bank of India, 2007 (2) LLN 212, followed. (¶35, 36) Permanent Status Act, 1981 — S.3 — 480 days of continuous service — Closure of shops — Held further: A workman with 480 days of continuous service within 24 consecutive months must automatically be made a permanent employee; mere closure of shops does not imply that the tenure of workmen accommodated in other shops stood terminated. Writ appeals dismissed. (¶28, 37, 40, 43)

Headnote

You've used your free headnotes this month

The answer above and the Court's own paragraphs stay free. LexStreak's full headnote on this judgment needs an account — a free one opens it again.

Create my free account
In the Court's own words
Paragraph 27We hold that this letter can never termed as a pronouncement of a legal principle or as a judgment of the Court. This letter, at the most, is a private opinion of the individual who had authored the letter. Incidentally, he happened to hold the position of the Principal Secretary to the Government. But that would not confer any special status to his opinion. The Court is not bound by that opinion. The Court can always disregard such opinion. When the law direct a particular act to be performed in a particular manner, it should be done only in that manner and by none else.
Paragraph 34The letter as already observed by us is not the law of the land and is not binding on us or on anybody, except perhaps on the author himself. This letter cannot also be termed as a notification granting exemption by the Government. We would not even extract that letter in view of its absurdity.
Acts & Sections
Section 3 Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981Section 9 Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981Section 2(6) Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947Section 4(1)(c) Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of The District Manager v. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Enforcement) — and get the Madras High Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment
Is Section 4(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 of no consequence to the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981, which incorporated only the definition of establishment?Must a workman with 480 days of continuous service within 24 consecutive months automatically be made a permanent employee under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981?Does mere closure of shops imply that the tenure of workmen accommodated in other shops stood terminated under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981?
Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Madras High Court. Corrections