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?
Coram: Justice C.V. Karthikeyan · Justice R.Sakthivel
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.
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 accountOne 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 accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India