Comments
The Madras High Court has dismissed a writ petition preferred by the Planters Association of Tamil Nadu challenging the order dated December 28, 2006 issued by the TN Labour Department under Section 18 of the Plantations Labour Act, 1951, providing for appointment of welfare officers in plantations (tea, coffee and rubber) engaging 300 or more workers.
Merely because there was delay in notifying provisions by the Government, “will not enure to benefit of planters”.
“..because the provision had not been notified for last 52 years…..cannot invalidate impugned provision”, Mr Justice K. Chandru ruled while hearing the petition.
‘Principle of desuetude’
This Court was not inclined to agree with the application of ‘principle of desuetude’ as being applied to it since the provision has not been given effect to earlier.
The Petitioner contended that the Act was enacted in 1951 and was brought into force from 1-4-1954.
For 52 years, this provision was not given effect to as the management and workers were satisfied with the working of the welfare provisions under enactment.
Having not allowed the provisions to come into force for these years, the ‘principle of desuetude’ would have to be observed as the provisions were never implemented.
Also u/s 43(3) of the Act, rules made by any Government other than the Centre would be subject to prior approval of the Centre.
Thirdly, the delegation made u/s 18 was excessive.
The Judge added it was a Central Act and the power of implementing it was left to the State Government.
Merely because there was a delay in issuing the notification u/s 18, the legislation would not become a dead letter in the statute book.
Since the provision had not been notified for 52 years could not invalidate it.
Misconceived arguement
It would be ridiculous to note that the provisions applied only to estates in North India, but would not apply to TN.
The said argument was misconceived.
It was not clear, the Judge said, as to why the petitioner contended there was no prior approval by the Centre.
On the other hand, by invoking Sec 23 of the General Clauses Act, the petitioner only wanted their objections should be considered.
The Judge held no case was made out to interfere with the impugned provisions.
The writ petition would stand dismissed.
> Subramanian.v@thehindu.co.in
Comments
Comments
Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.
We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of TheHindu Businessline and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.