The petitioner is a Trade Union challenging the order of the first respondent - State Government GO.MS(STD)No.124 Labour and Employment Department, dated 24.10.2008 as illegal, unconstitutional and ultravires.
2. It is the case of the Petitioner Union that they represent the construction workers in Tamilnadu and they are one of the largest federations. This contention was disputed in the counter affidavit stating that the petitioner Union was having only 235 members on its rolls. Be that as it may, the contention of the petitioner Union was that the Government has issued the impugned G.O. in terms of the Tamil Nadu Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act 1982, consisting various boards in respect of unorganised workers. One such board was created in respect of the construction workers.
3. When G.O.Ms.No.23 Labour and Employment Department dated 04.03.2008 was issued, the said G.O. was challenged before this Court as well as the Madurai Bench of this Court. At the relevant time, this Court recorded the submission of the learned Additional Advocate General that Government Order will not be implemented till the scheme already in existence is amended in accordance with law. Till such time, the existing scheme and methods of implementation of the scheme will continue. Recording the said submission, the matters were disposed of by a common order dated 09.04.2008. However, it transpires, the matter was taken on appeal before the Division Bench in W.A.No.501 of 2008. Before the Division Bench, the stand of the Government was that any scheme framed by the State Government will be in accordance with
Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Act 33 of 1982. Recording the said submission, the writ appeal was disposed of with a direction that no variation of the existing provisions will be implemented until suitable amendments were made. It was thereafter, the present impugned G.O. came to be issued.
4. The grievance of the petitioner against the said G.O. was while the implementation of the Provisions of the Act as well as the constitution of the board was in the control of the Labour Department, the verification of certificate and other machineries have been handed over to the Revenue Department. It is stated that approaching the revenue officials will be a cumbersome process. Since the employment is seasonal, it will be difficult for the members to get certificate from the respective Village Administrative Officers. Therefore, before finalising the scheme, the petitioner wanted the Union also to be consulted.
5. On notice from this Court, the respondents have filed a counter affidavit dated 12.12.2008. Apart from disputing the credentials of the petitioner Union, it was stated that Tamil Nadu Act 33 of 1982 requires consultation of an Advisory Committee constituted under the Act before making the changes in the scheme. The said Advisory Committee comprised of members representing both Employers as well as Trade Unions functioning under the Chairmanship of the Hon'ble Minister for Labour. The Act nowhere contemplates a further consultation with independent Trade Unions. Therefore, the petitioner Union has no locus standi to seek for prior consultation. With reference to the verification of the beneficiaries by the Revenue Department, it was stated that the present G.O. has created additional district office and 31 District Labour Officers (Social Security Schemes) for strengthening the functions of registration, verification, sanction and disbursement of welfare assistances to workers in the unorganised sectors. Therefore, there will not be any impediment for the workers to receive the membership and the subsequent benefits under the scheme. It is also stated that the scheme has not reduced any existing benefits available to the workers.
6. With reference to the involvement of the Revenue Department, it was stated that the Government order was notified in the Government Gazette and also came into effect from 31.10.2008 and the new scheme was only in terms of the provisions of the Act. It is also stated that it is not as if the entire maintenance of the scheme has been entrusted to the Revenue Department. The Government has taken a policy decision only to entrust certain functions to the offices belonging to the Revenue Department. The verification of the genuineness of the application of an applicant by the concerned Village Administrative Officers in respect of the revenue villages and in respect of the Chennai District, the matter was entrusted to the Revenue Inspector and this does not bring any disadvantage to the members, who are willing to take up membership under the Board.
7. In the light of the stand taken by the respondents, no case is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions is closed.
svki To
1.The Secretary, The Government of Tamil Nadu, Labour & Employment(I-1) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
2. The Commissioner for Labour, D.M.S, Chennai 6