MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY W.P.No.22187 of 2008 The Management of Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010. .. Petitioner Versus 1. All India Food & Allied Workers

2025:MHC:658
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Orders reserved on : 29.01.2025
Orders pronounced on : 11.03.2025
CORAM :
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.P.No.22187 of 2008
The Management of Tamil Nadu
Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.,
Kilpauk,
Chennai – 600 010. .. Petitioner

Versus
1. All India Food & Allied Workers
Union represented by its
Organizing Secretary, 23/2, A.P.Road, 2nd Lane, Choolai, Chennai – 600 012.
2. The Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal,
Chennai – 104. .. Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the papers and proceedings culminating in the impugned award of the 2nd respondent, dated 2nd July, 2008 in I.D.No.55 of 2000 and after considering the legality, validity and
propriety thereof, quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.Haja Nazirudeen,
Additional Advocate General – I,
Asstd. by Mr.C.Selvaraj,
Additional Government Pleader
For Respondents : Mr.V.Ajay Khose, for R1
: R2 – Tribunal

ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned award of the
Industrial Tribunal, Chennai, dated 02.07.2008 made in I.D.No.55 of 2000.
By the said award, the reference made by the appropriate Government vide
G.O.(D).No.215, dated 14.03.2000, Labour and Employment (A1)
Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai – 9 was answered by the Industrial Tribunal.
2. The following seven questions were referred by the appropriate Government:-
“Demand No.1: Whether the demand, that all the 444 workmen working under the Management of Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation shall be regularised, is justified? If so, to what relief they are entitled to? From what date it shall be given effect to?
Demand No.2: Whether the demand of the union that 444 workmen working under the management of Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation shall be paid basic pay, is justified? If so, what are the scales of pay to be fixed? From what date the benefits shall be given?
Demand No.3: Whether the demand, that the loading and unloading workers shall be issued with identify card, is justified?
Demand No.4: Whether the demand that contribution towards Employees Provident Fund shall be deducted to loading and unloading workmen and that they shall be extended with ESI Medical benefits, is justified?
Demand No.5: Whether the demand that 444 workmen working under Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation shall be paid minimum bonus is filed? If so, to what relief they are entitled to? From what date it shall be paid?
Demand No.6: Whether the demand that Earned leave National and Festival Holidays with pay shall be given, is justified? If so, to what relief they are entitled to?
Demand No.7: Whether the demand that the basic amenities such as latrine, bathroom, dining hall etc., shall be provided in each godown for the above workmen, is justified?”
3. The reference was answered in respect of the seven demands as follows:-
“In the result, award is passed holding that 1) all the 444 workmen working under the Management of Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation have to be regularised. The demand is justified. The petitioner union is entitled to all the benefits as prayed for in the claim statement. 2) The demand of the union that 444 workmen working under the Management of T.N.C.S.C shall be paid basic pay is also justified. The petitioner unions are entitled to all the benefits as prayed in the claim statement, 3) the demand that the loading and unloading workers shall be issued with identify card, is justified. 4) The demand that contribution towards Employees Provident Fund shall be deducted to unloding workmen and that they shall be extended with ESI Medical benefits, is justified. 5) The demand that 444 workmen working under T.N.C.S.C. shall be paid minimum bonus is justified. 6) The demand that Earned leave National and Festival Holidays with pay shall be given is justified and 7) The demand that the basic amenities such as latrine, bathroom, dining hall etc. shall be provided in each godown for the above workmen, is justified. No costs.”
Feeling aggrieved, the management is before this Court.
4. At the outset, when the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing, the learned Additional Advocate General, on behalf of the management, would submit that as far as Demand Nos. 3 to 7 are concerned, the identity cards have been issued, benefits of Provident Fund and ESI have been extended, the minimum bonus is being paid, Earned Leave, national and festival holidays with pay are granted, and basic amenities such as latrines, bathrooms, and a dining hall are all provided. The management is no longer aggrieved by the said demands, and this Writ Petition is restricted regarding Demand Nos. 1 and 2.
5. The management’s case is that it is a company registered under the
Companies Act, 2013. It is sponsored, owned and administered by the Government of Tamil Nadu. The organisation is engaged in the
procurement, processing, and distribution of essential commodities. It also undertakes tasks related to the maintenance of godowns and operates fair price shops for the public distribution system. Certain responsibilities of the Food Corporation of India are also carried out through the petitioner Corporation. The petitioner has godowns across the State for storing essential commodities. Previously, the petitioner paid piece-rate wages to the Maistry for loading and unloading, arranging his own team and disbursing payments to the labourers, while the Corporation had no control over this employment. However, in 1997, the Government made a policy decision on 01.05.1997 that loadmen who had completed 10 years of service as of 01.05.1997 would be entitled to direct payments from the petitioner. Subsequently, from April 1999, management began making direct payments to the loadmen who had completed 10 years of service by 01.05.1997. During this period, 252 load men in the Chennai region and 2879 load men in other regions were identified and paid directly by the petitioner. They received green identity cards, while those of the workmen who had not completed 10 years were given pink identity cards. As of the date of filing the Writ Petition, there were 3916 green card load men and 1315 pink card load men working.
6. Due to the nature of their employment, these loadmen are paid on a piece-rate basis, unlike other regular or casual workers under the management. They are not required or called upon to work for 8 hours a day owing to the unique nature of their duties. They work as needed when trucks arrive, which may occur only a few times a day or not at all. The work must be done as a team, making the piece-rate payment unique, based on the volume of goods loaded, unloaded, stacked, or standardized. These loadmen also tend to collect additional payments from transport contractors, which the management has now banned and is trying to enforce strictly. Regarding the Labour Court’s award for basic pay and time scale, it is impracticable and unworkable. Even in the Food Corporation of India and other similar large organisations involved in loading and unloading, piecerate payment is common in the trade, and loadmen cannot be granted a time scale of pay. The petitioner trade union does not represent the majority of the loadmen, and consequently, they do not have any locus standi.
7. The Writ Petition is contested by the first respondent union through the filing of a counter-affidavit. They claim a substantial number of loadmen as their members, and a list has been attached to the claim statement. Therefore, they possess locus standi. The management is also considered an establishment under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981. Thus, once the workmen complete 480 days of continuous service within two calendar months, they are entitled to permanency. Comparable establishments, such as the Food Corporation of India, Maharashtra Warehouse Corporation, and T.U.C.S, Chennai, which engage in the same trade of procuring, storing, and supplying food grains and other essential commodities, provide a pay scale for the loadmen. The petitioner management cannot alone deviate from granting pay by adopting a scale of pay, being an establishment of a similar nature. Therefore, even according to the principle of region-cum-industry, the management is obliged to grant the time scale of pay.
8. When management extends the pay scale to all other employees and revises their pay to align with government services, such pay is refused only for the loadmen. Regarding ESI benefits, although the petitioner claims exemption, no proof has been provided in support of this. While the Corporation is exempt from ESI, it also denies the benefits of the Corporation’s Medical Scheme to the loadmen.
9. Additionally, an affidavit is filed by the management at the time of arguments. According to this affidavit, the loadmen are engaged in handling activities such as loading, unloading, standardisation, segregation, staging, and re-staging, among others. They are involved in 48 different tasks, depending on the nature of their work and the field points they operate in, such as godowns, modern rice mills, and cap storage. The loadmen are paid piece-rate wages based on the amount of load they handle, as the nature of the work performed depends solely on the requirement and arrival of stock, which is uncertain. Due to the nature of the business, the quantity of stock is not uniform across all field points and varies daily, according to the capacity of the godowns and from region to region. When the Government made a policy decision on 01.05.1997 to provide green cards to those who had completed 10 years of service and pink cards for others, only 252 loadmen were identified as having completed 10 years and were issued green identity cards, while 183 loadmen received pink identity cards in the Chennai region.
10. It is further stated that of the 444 load men, the details of only 224 could be traced. Out of these 224 load men, 46 are currently working in the north and south regions of Chennai, while 178 are no longer employed due to retirement, death, long absenteeism, or failure to report for work. It is mentioned that the details of the remaining 220 load men could not be traced despite sincere efforts.
11. The piece-rate wages paid to the load men are enhanced by the Government every three years. Considering the various types of loadmen involved in handling essential commodities and the different work at various field points, unlike the Food Corporation of India, C.W.C, and T.U.C.S, the wages paid to these loadmen cannot be compared to those fixed for the loadmen engaged in the markets and shandies. This is because, in those areas, there is no guarantee of work and no additional benefits such as Provident Fund, Earned Leave, Bonus, or ex gratia. Weekly holidays with pay and national festival holidays are also granted to the workmen engaged by the management. Furthermore, the Government Order that fixes minimum wages for markets and shandies sets different wages for different regions. Therefore, the wages of those loadmen and of the petitioner management cannot be directly compared.
12. The loadmen putting in sincere and hard work earn around Rs.30,000/- per month. There is no budgetary sanction for the creation of a post as such. Other Class-IV employees, such as sweepers, scavengers, and office assistants, are sanctioned posts with the lowest pay band of Rs. 15,700 – 50,000. These positions have prescribed educational qualifications, a recruitment process, and a work schedule of eight hours, all governed by the service regulations of the Corporation. In contrast, for the load men, there are no prescribed qualifications, and the timing is purely dependent on the procurement, arrival, movement, and distribution of stocks, which varies across each field point based on godown capacity, requirements, public consumption, the number of family cards, fair price shops, and ration shops in the regions. There is no certainty involved. Furthermore, the management also operates during emergencies, natural calamities, disasters,
etc.
13. There are currently 4,295 load men working in various godowns, M.R.Ms, storage points, and other field locations across the regions. If any benefits of regularisation and pay scale are extended to these 444 load men, the same must be applied to the other loadmen. This situation would impose undue and significant financial burdens on the petitioner Corporation, leading to an imbalance in the administrative process and the effective implementation of the public distribution system in the state.
14. I heard Mr.Haja Nazirudeen, learned Additional Advocate General for the petitioner management, and Mr.V.Ajay Khose, learned Counsel for the first respondent union.
15. The learned Additional Advocate General would attract the attention of this Court to the communication from the Government to the petitioner management, dated 02.01.1998. The communication refers to the granting of permanency to the loadmen who have worked for more than 10 years with the petitioner management and states that this was accepted and announced by the Chief Minister on 01.05.1997, i.e., on May Day. Subsequently, remarks were requested from the Corporation by a letter, dated 12.05.1997. The Corporation submitted its remarks on 09.08.1997 and 26.09.1997. After reviewing these, the Government ordered that the loadmen who have completed 10 years of service shall be made permanent. A Committee, formed of Senior Regional Managers and Regional Managers, to identify the workmen who have served more than 10 years, and the
Corporation should regularise their services. The terms of regularisation were outlined in the annexure to the order.
16. According to the terms, they should have completed 10 years of claiming permanency, and the age limit should be between 18 and 58 years; identity cards will be issued. Regarding wages, it is stated that they will be paid at the same rates fixed on 01.12.1996 (which is based on the tonnage at Rs.8.64 per ton and, for standardisation, Rs.9.32 per bag). When there is no work, it will be treated on a no work, no pay basis. Instead of a bonus, an ex gratia payment can be provided. Gratuity will be paid as per the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Compensation will be provided as per the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923. Provident Fund contributions will be made according to the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.
17. Regarding medical compensation, only first aid can be granted.
Disciplinary inquiries will be conducted in accordance with the Industrial

Employment Standing Orders. Employees will be entitled to a weekly paid holiday, amounting to the total pay they received for the preceding six days. Medical leave of 10 days per year is granted. Paid leave is granted for three national holidays and three festival holidays. This order was implemented by the Managing Director on April 13, 1999. Therefore, the learned Additional Advocate General would argue that although the order does not specify regularisation in a pay scale, it does provide permanency and other benefits, such as the maintenance of an Attendance Register, weekly paid holidays, medical leave, provident fund, gratuity, and all other entitlements. The only thing that was not addressed was the creation of regular posts and the assignment of a pay scale.
18. In this context, the learned Additional Advocate General would cite the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Ashwani Kumar and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Ors.1, specifically paragraph No.12, to argue that when there are no sanctioned posts or budgetary approval, such a

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis1 (1997) 2 SCC 1
prayer could not have been granted by the Industrial Tribunal. The learned
Additional Advocate General would also refer to the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Chennai vs. R. Govindaswamy and Ors.2 to assert that the Court could not have ordered regularisation. He would further argue that the Industrial Tribunal did not address the pay scale, rendering the award vague. Additionally, the trade union has not specified or claimed any particular pay scale. Therefore, the Industrial Tribunal should have recognised that when the relief of permanency has been granted and the individuals have been appropriately compensated at the wages fixed by the Government from time to time, the relief should have been answered adequately. As such, the award must be set aside concerning this matter.
19. Per contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent union submits that the petitioner Corporation has engaged and continues to employ loadmen since its inception in 1972. When the Government of Tamil Nadu

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis2 (2014) 4 SCC 769
established minimum wages for loading and unloading operations by G.O.Ms.No.2679, dated 06.12.1998, the workmen employed by the petitioner management were not paid the prescribed minimum wages. The Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.Ms.No.447, dated 30.05.1990, thereby, declaring its policy decision to regularise loadmen employed in the godowns owned by the petitioner management and who had completed 10 years of service. Moreover, when the petitioner Corporation was directed to frame a scheme for regularisation, it failed to develop an adequate implementation plan. Consequently, the petitioner union raised the present dispute.
20. The primary relief sought by the workmen, in addition to the above, is that all these load men are considered permanent under the Act of 1981, as they have completed more than 480 days of service within two calendar years. Once they are permanent, they are entitled at least to the pay scale for the lowest Group IV employees. The loadmen also compared

themselves to the comparable region-cum-industry principle with similar establishments such as the Food Corporation of India, Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation, and the Triplicane Urban Co-operative Society Limited. Therefore, the Industrial Tribunal evaluated the oral and documentary evidence presented by both parties.
21. Three witnesses, namely W.W.1 to W.W.3, spoke about the perennial, permanent, and continuous nature of employment throughout the year. The employment occurs on all working days, with no fixed working hours, and work often extends beyond regular hours. Even the head of the loadmen, Maistry, was also considered a workman. The benefits extended to the sweepers in the same godown who perform the same tasks have not been applied to them. They marked Exs.W-1 to W-39. How wages are paid by the Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation and the fixation of the pay scale for loaders, among others, were all noted. The pay scale granted through a settlement between the workmen and a similar management, namely, T.U.C.S, was also marked.
22. The management witnesses, during their cross-examination, categorically admitted to several questions posed to them regarding the work performed by these workmen and the various benefits available to regular employees that are not extended to them. The management witnesses acknowledged that there is no difference between green card holders and pink card holders. The management’s assertion that all 444 workmen listed are not traceable cannot be accepted, as this is not solely the list provided by the petitioner trade union; rather, it is the list from the Committee formed by the management itself, and they are the ones who identified these 444 workmen included on the list.
23. It is evident that although the management agrees regarding other benefits such as weekly holidays, gratuity, Provident Fund, Deposit Link
Insurance, Pension under EPS, bonus, ex gratia, Pongal gift, and 10 days of paid national festival holidays, these benefits were not extended to the pink card holders. Moreover, it is observed that the management consistently pays less than the minimum wage for loading and unloading operations in markets, shandies, and other locations. A comparison of the wages and total amounts received by the loadmen with the wage slip of a sweeper reveals that the benefits afforded to these loadmen are significantly lower than those of a sweeper.
24. The learned Counsel relies on Circular No.4 of 2019 issued by the Food Corporation of India regarding revising pay scales for handling labourers and loaders. The learned Counsel asserts that all these workers are regular employees, including the Maistries. The fact that they are compensated on a piece rate basis does not alter their classification as workers under the Industrial Disputes Act. The applicability of the Act of 1981 has already been upheld in various judgments of this Court pertaining to the petitioner management. The arguments concerning sanctioned posts

and the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi will not apply in the current situation, and the matter is no longer res integra. The learned Counsel cites the following judgments in this regard:-
(i) Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. Vs.
Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari Sanghatana ;
(ii) Umrala Gram Panchayat Vs. Secretary, Municipal Employees
Union and Ors. ;
(iii) Durgapur Casual Workers Union and Ors. Vs. Food
Corporation of India and Ors. , more specifically, paragraph Nos.20 to 26;
(iv) Ajaypal Singh Vs. Haryana Warehousing Corporation , more specifically, paragraph Nos.16 to 18;
(v) Hari Nandan Prasad and Anr. Vs. Employer I/R to Management of Food Corporation of India and Anr.8, more specifically, paragraph No.39;
(vi) Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Vs. Krishan Gopal and Ors.9, more specifically, paragraph No.34;
(vii) Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Brajrajnagar Coal Mines
Workers’ Union10, more specifically, paragraph Nos.26 to 30;
(viii) Ushaben Joshi Vs. Union of India and Ors.11, more
specifically, paragraph Nos.13 to 19;
Referring to the above judgments, the learned Counsel would submit that the relief that is to be granted to the loadmen cannot be refused on the grounds that there is no sanctioned post, financial constraints, or that the petitioner is a public-sector corporation.
25. Even the 252 out of 444 workmen are reported to have completed 10 years of service and are said to have been regularised and issued green cards. However, they do not have any other leave benefits, such as Earned

9 (2021) 18 SCC 707
10 2024 SCC OnLine SC 270
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis11 2024 INSC 624
Leave, Medical Leave, or Casual Leave, aside from weekly off and national festival holidays. Only from 01.05.1997, they are enrolled as members of the Provident Fund. They receive only ex gratia payments and are not given a bonus. Moreover, the Provident Fund contributions are being contested, and appeals have been filed by the Corporation.
26. The management’s action in not extending the various beneficial provisions is illegal and contrary to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Jaggo Vs. Union of India and Ors.12 and Shripal and Anr. Vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad13. Therefore, the learned Counsel submits that these workmen are entitled to the minimum scale of pay being granted by the Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation, T.U.C.S, and Food Corporation of India. Even in the Co-operative Department, the Cooperative Registrar is setting the scales of pay for various categories, including packers. Therefore, according to the dictum of the Hon’ble

12 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis13 2025 INSC 144
Supreme Court of India in Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd. Vs. Workmen14, the workmen must be extended the same benefit on the principle of region-cumindustry.
27. Furthermore, the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, applies to the petitioner Corporation, and the amount paid is less than the minimum wage. Additionally, if work is performed beyond regular hours, overtime wages are also unpaid. The Government of Tamil Nadu has been periodically notifying the minimum wages for loading and unloading operations, and what the Corporation pays is significantly lower than these rates. Therefore, the services of the 444 workmen should be considered regularized according to the award of the Industrial Tribunal, and the Corporation should be directed to pay all their benefits, with the Writ Petition dismissed.
28. After hearing both sides’ learned counsel and reviewing thematerial records of the case, the following questions arise for determination

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis14 1966 SCC OnLine SC 106

in this case:
(i) To which workmen are the benefits granted by the award of the
Industrial Tribunal applicable?
(ii) Are the workmen entitled to claim permanency and
regularisation?
(iii) If so, what wages should be paid to them?
(iv) What benefits will the loadmen be entitled to?
(v) Does the award of the Industrial Tribunal warrant interference, and to what relief are the parties entitled?
Question No.i:-
29. In this case, initially, the dispute was raised, and a claim statement was filed concerning 444 load men. In the additional affidavit submitted to this Court, it is stated that details for only 224 load men could be traced. Of these, 46 load men are currently working in Chennai, while the remaining
178 have either retired, passed away, been long absent, or are not reporting for work, etc. It is noted that the details for the remaining 220 load men could not be traced despite sincere efforts. Conversely, the list provided by the workmen claims that the 444 names are traceable, with 46 currently working, 194 having retired, 87 having passed away, 70 being long absent, and 47 having taken voluntary retirement.
30. In this regard, it is clear that the list of 440 loadmen is not solely provided by the first respondent trade union. Rather, following the Government’s announcement of the policy decision to grant permanency to workmen with over 10 years of service, as well as to issue green cards to them and pink cards to the remaining workmen, the respondents themselves formed committees led by the Senior Regional Managers/Regional Managers. The report from this Committee is included as an annexure to the order dated 07.10.2010.
31. It can be seen that for Chennai North and Chennai South, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
number of green card holders were 164 and 123, respectively. Thus, the Corporation’s plea that the details regarding the workmen are untraceable, cannot be accepted. The specific plea was also not raised before the Industrial Tribunal that all 444 workmen were not working with the respondent Corporation. A list has been expressly provided along with the claim statement and with the charter of demand. Thereafter, the parties went into trial. Without disputing the number before the Industrial Tribunal, now, belatedly, and that too on a query by this Court, the management’s stance cannot be accepted. Therefore, I conclude that the workmen have proven that 444 workmen are involved in the present Industrial Dispute, and the benefits of the award as ordered will apply to all 444 load men as per the list provided by the load men.
Question Nos.ii:
32. The workmen claim that they are directly employed by the respondent Corporation for handling all these essential commodities and food grains. The management asserts that they are not directly engaged by them; rather, only the Maistry engages them. They have no control over them whatsoever. Management witnesses admit that the Maistries are not independent contractors; they are also workmen. The matter is no longer res integra. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Dharangadhra Chemical Works, Ltd. and State of Saurashtra and Ors.15, held that if the Maistry or head of the gang is also a workman under the management, then the management cannot deny the employer-employee relationship. Further, this position has been specifically laid down by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Tamilnadu Civil Supplies Corporation Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour and Ors. (W.A.No.2105 of 2011, dated 09.03.2015). Therefore, since these loadmen were not employed through any independent contractors, the management cannot plead the absence of a master-servant relationship. Once a master-servant relationship exists, the provisions of the Act of 1981 apply to the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies
Corporation Ltd.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis15 1957 (1) LLJ 477
33. According to Section 3 of the Act, if workers complete 480 days within two calendar years, they are considered permanent. Consequently, they will be entitled to permanent status and in all these cases, the respondents have collected details of these 444 workers based on their service period, among other factors. Admittedly, the work is perennial in nature. There may be rare days when there is no work at all. It can be observed from various exhibits that when no trucks are arriving, the workers engage in other tasks such as stacking and standardisation etc; 48 such tasks have been listed. Therefore, it is not the management’s position that they have not completed 480 days of service within a two-year period.
34. It is not necessary for them to approach only the Inspector of Labour under the said Act; even the industrial adjudicator can adjudicate the matter. Especially, when more significant questions are involved, the
Division Bench of this Court, in The Superintending Engineer, Erode

Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Erode Vs. Inspector of Labour, Erode and Ors., in W.P.No.4061 of 2013 etc. (batch cases), dated 07.03.2022, held that it is the industrial adjudicator who is the more appropriate person to decide the issue. In light of this, while the first respondent has agreed to confer permanency on these load men who have completed 10 years of service, it is evident that their policy cannot override the Act. The Act states that permanency should be granted upon completion of 480 days within two calendar years. Therefore, merely because the respondents issued a Government Order stating that permanency will be granted only after 10 years, this will not disqualify the workmen from any benefits. All 444 workmen will be entitled to permanency from the date they have completed 480 days of service.
35. The arguments presented by the learned Additional Advocate General regarding the non-sanctioning of posts and qualifications are not applicable. The role of these workers involves handling essential commodities; they are involved in hard manual labour. Therefore, educational qualifications are unnecessary. The principles established in Uma Devi’s case (cited above) cannot be applied to the current situation. It is important to extract paragraph Nos.22 to 27 of the judgment in Jaggo’s case (cited above) for quick reference as follows:-
“22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers’ rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations.
23. The International Labour Organization (ILO), of which India is a founding member, has consistently advocated for employment stability and the fair treatment of workers. The ILO’s Multinational Enterprises
Declaration (International Labour Organization – Tripartite
Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy) encourages companies to provide stable employment and to observe obligations concerning employment stability and social security. It emphasizes that enterprises should assume a leading role in promoting employment security, particularly in contexts where job discontinuation could exacerbate long-term unemployment.
24. The landmark judgment of the United State in the case of Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corporation [97 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 1996)] serves as a pertinent example from the private sector, illustrating the consequences of misclassifying employees to circumvent providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft classified certain workers as independent contractors, thereby denying them employee benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that these workers were, in fact, common-law employees and were entitled to the same benefits as regular employees. The Court noted that large Corporations have increasingly adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees or independent contractors as a means of avoiding payment of employee benefits, thereby increasing their profits. This judgment underscores the principle that the nature of the work performed, rather than the label assigned to the worker, should determine employment status and the corresponding rights and benefits. It highlights the judiciary’s role in rectifying such misclassifications and ensuring that workers receive fair treatment.
25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways:
• Misuse of “Temporary” Labels: Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labeled as “temporary” or “contractual,” even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks.
• Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service.
• Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant.
• Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment.
• Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances.
26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between “illegal” and “irregular” appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment’s explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment’s spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades.
27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization’s functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country.”
36. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India further holds in Shripal’s case (cited above) in paragraphs 14 to 19, which read as follows:-
“14. The Respondent Employer places reliance on Umadevi (supra) to contend that daily-wage or temporary employees cannot claim permanent absorption in the absence of statutory rules providing such absorption. However, as frequently reiterated, Uma Devi itself distinguishes between appointments that are “illegal” and those that are “irregular,” the latter being eligible for regularization if they meet certain conditions. More importantly, Uma Devi cannot serve as a shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for years without the Employer undertaking legitimate recruitment. Given the record which shows no true contractor- based arrangement and a consistent need for permanent horticultural staff the alleged asserted ban on fresh recruitment, though real, cannot justify indefinite daily-wage status or continued unfair practices.
15. It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen continuously rendered their services over several years, sometimes spanning more than a decade. Even if certain muster rolls were not produced in full, the Employer’s failure to furnish such records—despite directions to do so
—allows an adverse inference under well-established labour jurisprudence. Indian labour law strongly disfavors perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in circumstances where the work is permanent in nature. Morally and legally, workers who fulfil ongoing municipal requirements year after year cannot be dismissed summarily as dispensable, particularly in the absence of a genuine contractor agreement. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite “temporary” employment practices as done by a recent judgement of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India in the following paragraphs:
“22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers’ rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations.
………
25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways:
• Misuse of “Temporary” Labels: Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labelled as “temporary” or “contractual,” even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks.
• Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service.
• Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant. • Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment.
• Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances.”
16. The High Court did acknowledge the
Employer’s inability to justify these abrupt terminations.
Consequently, it ordered re-engagement on daily wages with some measure of parity in minimum pay. Regrettably, this only perpetuated precariousness: the Appellant Workmen were left in a marginally improved yet still uncertain status. While the High Court recognized the importance of their work and hinted at eventual regularization, it failed to afford them continuity of service or meaningful back wages commensurate with the degree of statutory violation evident on record.
17. In light of these considerations, the Employer’s discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen stands in violation of the most basic labour law principles. Once it is established that their services were terminated without adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that they were engaged in essential, perennial duties, these workers cannot be relegated to perpetual uncertainty. While concerns of municipal budget and compliance with recruitment rules merit consideration, such concerns do not absolve the Employer of statutory obligations or negate equitable entitlements. Indeed, bureaucratic limitations cannot trump the legitimate rights of workmen who have served continuously in de facto regular roles for an extended period.
18. The impugned order of the High Court, to the extent they confine the Appellant Workmen to future daily-wage engagement without continuity or meaningful back wages, is hereby set aside with the following directions:
I. The discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen’s services, effected without compliance with Section 6E and Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is declared illegal. All orders or communications terminating their services are quashed. In consequence, the Appellant Workmen shall be treated as continuing in service from the date of their termination, for all purposes, including seniority and continuity in service.
II. The Respondent Employer shall reinstate the Appellant Workmen in their respective posts (or posts akin to the duties they previously performed) within four weeks from the date of this judgment. Their entire period of absence (from the date of termination until actual reinstatement) shall be counted for continuity of service and all consequential benefits, such as seniority and eligibility for promotions, if any.
III. Considering the length of service, the Appellant Workmen shall be entitled to 50% of the back wages from the date of their discontinuation until their actual reinstatement. The Respondent Employer shall clear the aforesaid dues within three months from the date of their reinstatement.
IV. The Respondent Employer is directed to initiate a fair and transparent process for regularizing the Appellant Workmen within six months from the date of reinstatement, duly considering the fact that they have performed perennial municipal duties akin to permanent posts. In assessing regularization, the Employer shall not impose educational or procedural criteria retroactively if such requirements were never applied to the Appellant Workmen or to similarly situated regular employees in the past. To the extent that sanctioned vacancies for such duties exist or are required, the Respondent Employer shall expedite all necessary administrative processes to ensure these longtime employees are not indefinitely retained on daily wages contrary to statutory and equitable norms.
19. In view of the above, the appeal(s) filed by the workmen are allowed, whereas the appeal(s) filed by the Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad are dismissed.”
37. As a matter of fact, apart from the aforementioned judgments, it has been established by a catena of other judgments, which the learned Counsel for the workmen relies upon, that the judgment in Uma Devi’s case (cited above) only addresses the power of the High Court to issue orders of regularisation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and this would not apply to industrial adjudication by the Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals. The same will not have any application where permanency is claimed as per the Tamil Nadu Act of 1981. Consequently, the contention of the learned Additional Advocate General in this regard is rejected. Therefore, not only the 444 workmen who have completed 10 years of service as stipulated by the Government Order, but also all other workmen who have completed 480 days of continuous service within a two-year period, will be entitled to permanency. Thus, all the workers involved in the dispute, regardless of whether they have completed 10 years of service, have indeed completed 480 days of service within two calendar years, and this fact is undisputed. As such, the workers are entitled to regularisation.
Accordingly, the question is answered.
Question No. iii:
38. The question to be determined is, once the loadmen are deemed regular workmen, what pay they are entitled to. The Government Order, granting permanency, extends the same rate fixed by the Government, which is based on a piece-rate system calculated per metric ton of the essential commodities handled by these load men.
39. Similarly, regarding other works, the wage is fixed based on the quantum. In the impugned award, the question concerning wages was addressed as issue No.2. The award examined the regularisation of these workmen in detail. It concluded that they are entitled to regularisation, and the management’s contention regarding the distribution of two types of colour cards is unjustifiable. The Labour Court determined that the workmen are entitled to all other benefits. It affirmed that the union’s demand for basic pay for the 444 workmen employed by the management is justified. Neither the first respondent union mentioned any specific scale, nor did the Industrial Tribunal indicate that it was ordering a particular scale of pay.
40. The contention of the learned Counsel for the first respondent union is that this is based on the principle of region-cum-industry, the scale of pay is provided by both the Food Corporation of India and the Triplicane Urban Co-operative Society, which are involved in similar work of distributing essential commodities, and therefore, the scale of pay is comparable. He submits that the minimum scale of pay granted to Class – IV workers should be applied. He contends that the wages paid to these workers remain lower than the minimum wages fixed for loading and unloading operations in the market. Additionally, it is contended that no overtime is paid when these workers perform loading and unloading after working hours.
41. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General for the petitioner submits that there are no fixed working hours. The nature of the job is such that at any time, transporting lorries will arrive at locations such as godowns or storages. There are no prescribed working hours for these workers. The amount fixed in relation to the market cannot be compared, as the available work in the market is very scarce, and the quantity of work undertaken by all these workers is substantial. The workers who do not take leave on all working days earn a fair amount of wages, as evidenced by the statement filed on behalf of the management. He argues that the cases of the Food Corporation of India or the T.U.C.S, are not comparable at all, as the scale of operations undertaken by the management is significant. In fact, the majority of the work is conducted by the Food Corporation of India or solely by the petitioner management.
42. Firstly, the work done by the T.U.C.S, involves operating a few fair-price shops in the Chengalpattu and Chennai districts, and their activities are quite negligible compared to the petitioner management. Similarly, when the Food Corporation of India entrusts the majority of its work solely to the petitioner management, the volume handled by the petitioner Corporation, which holds a monopoly throughout the State of Tamil Nadu in handling and distributing essential commodities for the public distribution system, is incomparable. Even in Food Corporation of India, the majority of the loading and unloading work is outsourced. The petitioner management engages in procuring, processing, hulling, transporting, and distributing rice and other essential commodities. Therefore, if any comparable industry exists, it can only be similar Civil Supplies Corporations in other states undertaking such massive operations statewide. Thus, the comparison sought to be made on a region-cumindustry basis cannot be accepted by this Court.
43. Once employees are deemed regular, normally, they must be paid wages only for a specific wage period. But however, the Court is considering the peculiar nature of the work. Loading and unloading is hard labor. It is not individualistic, but, mandatorily involves a team work and co-ordination. Unlike other works, 8 hours cannot be prescribed for this. It is intensive and strenuous work and then, there must be breaks. It should immediately happen as an when the vehicle arrives. It is nearly impossible to complete the same on a monthly wage payment. Therefore, after considering the unique nature of the work done by the loaders, the system developed by management, which fixes wages at various rates for the different types of work, must be upheld as specific to the trade. It can be observed that according to G.O.(D).No.148, dated 06.08.2008, it is
stipulated that the rates will be revised every three years.
44. In this regard, it is further contended that it is less than the minimum wages fixed by the Government. It can be seen that the minimum wages are set specifically with reference to the markets and not generally concerning loading and unloading. As rightly argued by the learned Additional Advocate General for the petitioner management, the volume of work available to the petitioner management is very high and consists of regular operations. It is stated that these loadmen were also assigned other tasks when there was no loading and unloading, which also entitles them to wages on a piece-rate basis. It is further noted that all these loadmen will be entitled to pay holidays based on the average wages earned by them throughout the week. Other paid holidays are also granted. The only difference is that instead of a fixed scale of pay, the payment for these loadmen will be determined based on the rates periodically established by the Government. When it becomes wholly impracticable for the management to carry out the loading and unloading operations by prescribing a monthly wage basis, and considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the award of the Industrial Tribunal was made without justifiable reason or substantial discussion by simply holding that the claim of the trade union is justified, which cannot be accepted. In this regard, useful reference can be made to the judgment of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Hindustan Hosiery Industries Vs. F.H.Lalla and Anr.16, more specifically to paragraph No.18, which reads as follows:
“18. Piece-rate is what is paid by results or outturn of work which is often described as a “task”. There is greater consideration to quantity in fixing piece-rates in some particular types of work in some industries with a guaranteed minimum. The same standard may not be appropriate in all types of piece work. With reference to particular work the importance of man rather than the machine employed may have to be dealt with differently. Even in piece-rates it will be necessary to look around to find some correlation with time-rates of the same or similar class of workers, for example, the contribution of the worker to the job, the nature of the work, the part played by the machine, the incentive to work and above all protection against any creation of industrial unrest because of the existence side by side of two categories of workers, particularly if there is no possibility of transfer of labour from one type of work to the other from time to time. Again there may be some work where special skill of the worker with or without machine may be necessary and that factor will have to be then considered. It will vary from industry to industry and from one process to another. No hard and fast rule can be laid down nor is it possible or helpful. The Tribunal, in an industrial adjudication, will have to see that piece-rates do not drive workers to fatigue to the limit of exhaustion and hence will keep an eye on the time factor in work. Then again a guaranteed minimum may also have to be provided so that for no fault of a diligent worker he does not stand to lose on any

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis16 (1974) 4 SCC 316
account. There may be a misty penumbra which has got to be pierced through upon all available materials on record and also on what the Tribunal, in fairness, can lay its hands on, with notice to the parties, for the purpose of fixing the piece-rates balancing all aspects. We have only indicated broadly the bare outlines of approach in a matter so involved and sensitive as wage fixation particularly when no one at the present time can shut one’s eyes to the rising spiral of prices of essential commodities. The central figure in the adjudication, however, is the wage earner who should have a fair deal in the bargain in a real sense as far as can be without at the same time ignoring the vital interests of the industry whose viability and prosperity are also the mainstay of labour. How the various competing claims have to be balanced in a given case should mainly be the function of an impartial adjudicator in an industrial proceeding unless the Legislature chooses to adopt other appropriate means and methods. Article 136 of the Constitution does not create a right of appeal in favour of any person. It confers power on the Court which should not be so exercised as to
convert the Court into a court of appeal.”
(Emphasis supplied)
45. Thus, it can be seen that while the Industrial Tribunal can fix the wages, it can do the same on region-cum-industry basis and it has to take into account that the employees, on piece-rate, are to be guaranteed with minimum and that they are not driven to fatigue. In this case, the rates are fixed and the compilation of wages, that is produced by the management,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
reveals minimum amounts. Balancing fairness with efficiency is the key principle. Loading, unloading, stacking, standardisation etc., remains to be labour intensive sectors. However, the quantum per ton etc., is being fixed by the Government of Tamilnadu for the purposes of the management. The management shall undertake periodic revisions of the rates, as prescribed by them, to ensure that a loadman, who works every day without taking unnecessary leave, can earn as much as any other Class – IV employee. The wages periodically fixed should be commensurate to the hard labour that is put in. In this case, the statement filed by the management shows that the workers doing sincere service earn approximately Rs.30,000/- per month, while a Class – IV Office Assistant or the lowest-grade employee earns slightly more than that. This must be considered while revising the rates by the petitioner management.
46. It should be noted that the entire loading and unloading operation involves teamwork. Therefore, if a pay scale is implemented and even if one or two employees remain non-cooperative, the operation would come to a standstill. This also contributes to the uniqueness of the loading and unloading process. The volume of work managed by the petitioner is substantial. All these factors make this a unique case where, even after granting permanency, the management can be allowed to pay wages on a piece-rate basis. However, as stipulated in the Government Order, all these workers will be entitled to a paid weekly holiday and all other national and festival holidays. It is true that the Industrial Tribunal can fix the wages on ‘region-cum-industry’ basis. In this regard, useful reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Unichem Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Workmen17, and paragraph Nos.70 to 76 read as follows:-
“70. In the fixation of wages and dearness allowance the legal position is well established that it has to be done on an industry-cum-region basis having due regard to the financial capacity of the unit under consideration, vide Express Newspapers (Private) Ltd.
v. Union of India, [1959 SCR 12 : AIR 1958 SC 578 : (1961) 1 Lab LJ 339] Greaves Cotton and Co. v. Workmen and Bengal Chemical & Pharmaceutical

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis17 (1972) 3 SCC 552
Works Ltd. v. Workmen.
71. It has been further stated in Greaves Cotton and Co. v. Workmen (supra) as follows:
“The principle therefore which emerges from these two decisions is that in applying the industry-cum-region formula for fixing wagescales the Tribunal should lay stress on the industry part of the formula if there are a large number of concerns in the same region carrying on the same industry; in such a case in order that production cost may not be unequal and there may be equal competition, wages should generally be fixed on the basis of the comparable industries, namely, industries of the same kind. But where the number of industries of the same kind in a particular region is small it is the region part of the industry-cum-region formula which assumes importance ….”
72. It has been further emphasised in Ahmedabad Millowners’ Association etc. v. The Textile Labour Association that industrial adjudication should always take into account, when revising the wage structure and granting dearness allowance, the problem of the additional burden to be imposed on the employer and ascertain whether the employer can reasonably be called upon to bear such burden. The principles to be borne in mind have been stated in the said decision as follows:
“It is a long-range plan; and so, in dealing with this problem, the financial position of the employer must be carefully examined. What has been the progress of the industry in question; what are the prospects of the industry in future; has the industry been making profits; and if yes, what is the extent of profits; what is the nature of demand which the industry expects to secure; what would be the extent of the burden and its gradual increase which the employer may have to face .” These and similar other considerations have to be carefully weighed before a proper wage structure can be reasonably constructed by
industrial adjudication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ”
73. As pointed out in Greaves Cotton and Co. v. Workmen, one of the principles to be adopted in fixing wages and dearness allowance is that the Tribunal should take into account the wage-scale and dearness allowance prevailing in comparable concerns carrying on the same industry in the region. The factors which have to be taken into account for ascertaining comparable concerns have also been laid down by this Court.
74. In Workmen of Balmer Lawrie and Co. v. Balmer Lawrie and Co. [(1964) 5 SCR 344 : AIR 1964 SC 728 : (1964) 1 Lab LJ 360] those principles have been stated as follows:
“Besides, it is necessary to emphasise that in dealing with the comparable character of industrial undertakings, industrial adjudication does not usually rely on oral evidence alone. This question is considered in the light of material facts and circumstances which are generally proved by documentary evidence. What is the total capital invested by the concern, what is the extent of its business, what the order of the profits made by the concern, what are the dividends paid, how many employees are employed by the concern, what is its standing in the industry to which it belongs, these and other matters have to be examined by industrial adjudication in determining the question as to whether one concern is comparable with another in the matter of fixing wages. Now, it is obvious that those questions cannot be decided merely on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the interested testimony either of the workmen, or of the employer and his witness.”
75. In Workmen of New Egerton Woollen Mills v. New Egerton Woollen Mills, [(1969) 2 LLJ 782] the above principles have again been reiterated.
76. From the decisions, referred to above, it follows that two principal factors which must weigh while fixing or revising wage-scales and grades are: (1) how the wages prevailing in the establishment in question compare with those given to the workmen of similar grade and scale by similar establishments in the same industry or in their absence in similar establishments in other industries in the region; and (2) what wage-scales the establishment in question can pay without any undue strain on its financial resources. The same principles substantially apply when fixing or revising the dearness allowance.”
47. In this regard, it can be seen that the workmen seek to compare themselves with T.U..CS, which only operates a few fair price shops and the volume of work is absolutely incomparable. The only comparable industry is the Food Corporation of India. It can be seen that the while a very minimal of the loadmen are conferred with the pay scale as claimed by workmen, still the operations of the Food Corporation of India is largely on outsourcing basis. Thus, there is no comparable industry on ‘region-cumindustry’ basis, given the volume of work that is undertaken by the Tamilnadu Civil Supplies Corporation.
48. The next plea is raised regarding payment of overtime wages. The question that the piece rate workers will also be entitled to overtime wages is settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Clothing Factory,
National Workers Union, Avadi, Madras Vs. Union of India by its Secretary and Ors.18. But, in this Industrial Dispute, no relief could be granted in general because it is pleaded by the management that there are no working hours at all fixed. But, on a given day, it may happen that the workmen would have started the work at a particular time and have been made continuously work beyond 8 hours. In such cases, the piece-rates have to be calculated on overtime basis. The same would depend on a case to case basis and in general no relief can be granted. With regard to transporters, the management is fully justified, and the workmen cannot collect any money from them, and it would be a misconduct on the part of workmen.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis18 (1990) 3 SCC 50
49. Thus, this question is answered that the loadmen can be paid on a piece-rate basis as may be fixed by the Government periodically. But, the revision should consider the wage difference between a Class – IV employee and such of the loadmen who put in sincere and arduous service and the rates prescribed shall be in such a manner so as to make them earn the same amount as that of the Class – IV employees. Whenever they are employed continuously more than 8 hours a day, then the rates shall be as per overtime wages. Accordingly, the question is answered.
Question No. iv:
50. Once the workmen are permanent, they are entitled to all the other benefits as that of the regular workman. It is accepted that there will be deductions of Provident Fund and they will be entitled for all the benefits under the said Act. Having accepted in the Government Order, the management cannot contest the deductions to be made with reference to Provident Fund. The employees’ contribution shall be duly deducted and the employers contribution shall be paid. The question that the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 is applicable in all force to employees who are paid on piece-rate basis also is well settled now with the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Officer-in-Charge, Sub-Regional Provident Fund Office and Anr. Vs. Godavari Garments Limited19. With reference to ESI contribution, the management claims exemption. Once exemption is claimed, the loadmen will be entitled to the medical reimbursements and medical benefits as is applicable to all other regular employees of the Corporation. It is agreed that they will be governed by the duly approved Standing Orders approved under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 with
reference to matters regarding disciplinary enquiry etc.
51. It is further agreed that they will be entitled to gratuity as per theprovisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Even though the matter is

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis19 (2019) 8 SCC 149
not contested, it is stated that only ex gratia is paid. But these loadmen will be entitled to Bonus as per the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 and not mere ex gratia. The demand regarding identity cards has been partially met. It is clear that the color distinction can only be made between permanent and new loadmen. Once the loadmen have completed 480 days of service within two calendar years, there will only be one type of identity card for these loadmen. The weekly paid holiday shall be granted to all the loadmen. Similarly, they will be entitled for other leaves including National Holidays and Festival Holidays with wages that are calculated on their average wages. There can be no exceptions to the demand for basic amenities such as restrooms, dining halls, etc., which must be provided in every godown or workplace in the best manner possible.
Question No.v:
52. In view of the above findings, the award of the Industrial Tribunalrequires interference with reference to order directing the petitioner

management to pay on a monthly scale of pay. It also requires clarification with regard to the above benefits as mentioned in paragraph No.50 and 51 above.
The Result:
53. In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of on the following terms:-
(i) The award of the Industrial Tribunal, dated 02.07.2008 made in I.D.No.55 of 2000 is upheld inasmuch as it confers permanency on the workmen;
(ii) It is made clear that the workmen shall be deemed to be permanent from the dates, on which, they completed 480 days of service within two calendar years of service;
(iii) However, the award is modified with reference to their wages which shall be on piece-rate basis at the rates as may be fixed by the Government from time to time ;
(iv) The amount shall be fixed so as to make the workmen earn the same amount of wages as that of the Class – IV workmen if they regularly perform the operations and the average wage earned by such workmen, is taken into account and difference be calculated and accordingly, revisions shall be done while periodically re-fixing the rates. On a particular day, if the workmen happened to perform their duties more than 8 hours then the rates shall be calculated on overtime basis;
(v) The workmen will also be entitled to all other benefits as detailed in paragraph No.50 and 51 above;
(vi) There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
11.03.2025 Neutral Citation : yes grs
To
1. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Chennai – 104.
2. The Section Officer, V.R. Section,
High Court of Madras. 
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
grs W.P.No.22187 of 2008
11.03.2025