Judgment :- Heard the arguments of Mr. N. Kannadasan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for M/s T.S. Gopalan & Co., for the petitioner Management and Mr. Somayaji, learned Senior Counsel appearing for M/s Aiyer and Dolia, for the second respondent workmen and perused the records. 2. The petitioner is the Management of Arasu Rubber Corporation which is a State owned Government Company. In W.P. No. 15227 of 1996, the challenge is to the Award dated 19.02.1996 passed by the first respondent Industrial Tribunal in I.D. No. 73 of 1992. By the said Award, the Tribunal held the withdrawal of the paid weekly holiday proposed by the petitioner Company as illegal and that the workmens demand for continued payment for weekly holidays was justified. 3. In W.P. No. 15228 of 1996, the challenge is to the Award dated 19.02.1996 passed by the Industrial Tribunal in I.D. No. 79 of 1991 wherein and by which, the Tribunal declared that the watchers are entitled to get wages for the rest day and the denial of the same by the petitioner Corporation was illegal. 4. This Court though admitted the writ petitions, however, dismissed the stay application by a considered order dated 24.01.1997. In W.P. No. 15227 of 1996, interim stay granted on 110. 1996, was made absolute on 09. 2003. As against the refusal to grant stay, a writ appeal was filed by the petitioner in W.A. No. 329 of 1997 and the same was dismissed with a direction to expedite the hearing of the writ petition. 5. In view of the interconnectivity between the two writ petitions, they were heard together and a common order is being passed. 6. Before the formation of the Government Company, the activities of the petitioner Corporation were taken care of by the Government of Tamil Nadu and controlled by the Forest and Fisheries Department. For the Government Rubber Plantation, Certified Standing Orders dated 29. 1970 were provided. The extent of land owned by the Company is approximately 2800 Acres and there are about 2400 employees engaged by them. There were three categories of workers employed by them and they are (a) Field workers (b) General workers (Factory) and (c) staff. In order to protect the companys properties, at the relevant time, there were 114 sweepers, scavengers and field workers. There were three categories of workers employed by them and they are (a) Field workers (b) General workers (Factory) and (c) staff. In order to protect the companys properties, at the relevant time, there were 114 sweepers, scavengers and field workers. When the control of the Rubber Plantation was in the hands of the Government, the field workers, sweepers and scavengers were given weekly holidays with wages. It was stated that each time, the Rubber Plantation authorities used to apply to the Government and got sanction for payment of wages for the weekly rest period. The wages of the workmen were determined by settlements between the Trade Unions and the Management. Those settlements did not speak about wages for the rest day. 7. On 23. 1985, the Commissioner and Secretary to Government wrote a letter to the Chief Conservator of Forests and also the copy was marked to the Conservator of Forests, Kanyakumari District. The letter reads as follows:- "Sub:Forests G.R.P. K.K. Dist., Employment of Scavengers, Sweepers and Watchers grant to weekly holiday with wages permitted. Ref: 1. Government letter No. 12240/FR.VIII/82 Forests and Fisheries Department dt. 4. 1982. 2. Your letter No. 59894 / F.R. VIII/82. 3. Forests and Fisheries Department dt. 22. 1983. 4. Your letter No. H2. 28289 /83-1, dt. 13. 1983. 5. From the C.F. East Rubber Circle Letter Ref. No. W. 3907/83, dt. 24. 1983. I am directed to invite your attention to the references cited at to State Government have decided that the sweepers in Government R.P., K.K. Dist., be given holiday as rest for one day with wages after every six working days. I am to request you to take action accordingly. This order shall take effect from the date of issue of this letter." 8. On 8. 1984, the petitioner Corporation was incorporated under the Companies Act and w.e.f. 010. 1984, the plantations were taken over and administered by the petitioner Company. Even after the formation of the petitioner Corporation, the payment of wages for the rest day for the field workers including sweepers and scavengers was continued. Since only a small number of workers were receiving rest day wages, the other workers brought pressure on the Management to withdraw the benefit given to those workmen. Due to pressure exerted by some of the Unions, the petitioner Management issued a notice dated 14. Since only a small number of workers were receiving rest day wages, the other workers brought pressure on the Management to withdraw the benefit given to those workmen. Due to pressure exerted by some of the Unions, the petitioner Management issued a notice dated 14. 1991 purporting to be under Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act [for short, I.D. Act] proposing to change the service conditions after expiry of the notice. The intended change was mentioned in the Annexure to the notice, which is as follows:- "The Scavengers, Sweepers and Field workers who are engaged for protection purposes will be paid wages for the days of works actually performed by them like other field workers. The aforesaid workers will not be paid wages for the rest days. The said workers are entitled to get wages like other field workers." 9. Though some of the Unions did not object to the change of service conditions, the Kanyakumar Estate Workers Union objected to the same. The Government Rubber Corporation Watchers Union raised a dispute by their letter dated 15. 1991. Even during the pendency of the conciliation proceedings, the petitioner Management discontinued the rest day wages w.e.f. 15. 1991. According to the Management, during April 1991, there were 114 workmen who were receiving rest day wages and at present, there are only 55 workmen covered by the said category. The dispute raised by the watchers was referred for adjudication by G.O. No. 1140 Labour Department dated 111. 1991 and the dispute raised by the sweepers was referred for adjudication by G.O. No. 647 Labour Department dated 17. 1992. The dispute raised by the watchers was taken on file as I.D. No. 79 of 1991 and the dispute by the sweepers was taken on file as I.D. No. 73 of 1992. 10. The Labour Court in I.D. No. 79 of 1991 allowed the workmen to mark documents Exs. W.1 to W.28 and the petitioner Management marked documents as Exs. M.1 to M.13. While the Secretary of the Union by name, J. James was examined as W.W.1, on the side of the petitioner, one Veeramani (M.W.1) and K. Ranganathan (M.W.2) were examined. The Tribunal, on consideration of the materials placed before it, held that since the benefit was given by the Government, the Management should have obtained approval from the Government. While the Secretary of the Union by name, J. James was examined as W.W.1, on the side of the petitioner, one Veeramani (M.W.1) and K. Ranganathan (M.W.2) were examined. The Tribunal, on consideration of the materials placed before it, held that since the benefit was given by the Government, the Management should have obtained approval from the Government. It also rejected the contention of the Management that the withdrawal was made necessary due to the pressure of the other workers demanding similar benefit. It also held that the watchers are separate category and the Government gave the benefit considering the arduous nature of the duty of that category. It also held that the workmen are working for all the 24 hours in all the seven days of a week and their work involve risk because of attack by wild animals. It also held that even though neither in the Minimum Wages Act nor under the Plantations Labour Act provision is made for holiday with wages, it is the Government which thought that these categories should be paid wages for the rest day also. Therefore, the withdrawal of the said benefit was illegal and, by its Award, it directed the continuation of the benefits. 11. Similarly, in the case of sweepers in I.D. No. 73 of 1992, 14 documents were filed on the side of workmen and they were marked as Exs. W.1 to W.14 and on the side of the petitioner Management, 16 documents were filed and they were marked as Exs. M.1 to M.16. While the Secretary of the second respondent Union, by name, M. Annadurai was examined as W.W.1, on the side of the Management, one K. Ranganathan was examined as M.W.1. In this case, the Tribunal found that notice under Section 9-A of the I.D. Act was not served on the second respondent and it was also not put up in the language known to the workmen thereby contravened Rule 57 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958. In that view of the matter, the Labour Court held that since the mandatory conditions provided under Section 9-A read with Rule 57 and Form N were not followed, the action of the petitioner was illegal. It is against these two Awards, the present writ petitions have been filed. 12. Mr. In that view of the matter, the Labour Court held that since the mandatory conditions provided under Section 9-A read with Rule 57 and Form N were not followed, the action of the petitioner was illegal. It is against these two Awards, the present writ petitions have been filed. 12. Mr. N. Kannadasan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for M/s T.S. Gopalan & Co., representing the petitioner Corporation made the following submissions in assailing the two Awards:- .(a) The rest day wages paid to the filed workers including watchers, sweepers and scavengers was not a service condition between the Management and the workmen and it was a concession given erroneously by the Government. .(b) There cannot be two different service conditions in respect of the plantation workers i.e., one receiving the rest day wage and the other not receiving the rest day wage. .(c) Neither in the Plantations Labour Act nor in the Minimum Wages Act, rest day wage has been provided by the Government and therefore, the workmen cannot claim it as a matter of right. .(d) Since the benefit of rest day wages is available only to 114 workmen out of a total of 2400 workers and it creates an unrest among the other sections. .(e) Because of the continuance of the rest day wages, there is a clamour for other categories of workers to get posted as watchers. .(f) Since there is a substantial compliance by giving notice under Section 9-A of the I.D. Act, the Award in I.D. No. 73 of 1992 taking a contrary view was not valid. .(g) The private estates in Kanyakumari District do not grant such benefits to their workmen. 13. Per contra, Mr. A.L. Somayaji, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. G. Venkataraman, appearing for the second respondent, submitted that the noncompliance of the condition prescribed under Section 9A of the I.D. Act cannot be condoned and the Tribunal was correct in holding that there was an infraction of notice under Section 9A of the I.D. Act. Once it is held that the notice under Section 9A of the I.D. Act was not proper, the Tribunal need not go into the merits of the dispute raised between the parties. 14. The learned Senior Counsel placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Oil Corpn. Once it is held that the notice under Section 9A of the I.D. Act was not proper, the Tribunal need not go into the merits of the dispute raised between the parties. 14. The learned Senior Counsel placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. vs. Workmen [ (1976) 1 SCC 63 ] and referred to the following passage found in paragraph 12:- Para 12: "It was next contended that even if Section 9-A of the Act applied, the Tribunal should have gone into the question on merits instead of giving the award on the basis of non-compliance with the provisions of Section 9A. This argument also appears to us to be equally untenable. On the facts and circumstances of the present case the only point that fell for determination was whether there was any change in the conditions of service of the workmen and, if so, whether the provisions of Section 9-A of the Act were duly complied with. We cannot conceive of any other point that could have fallen for determination on merits, after the Tribunal held that Section 9-A of the Act applied and had not been complied with by the appellant." 15. He also submitted that the workmen covered by the two Awards are entitled to get wages for the rest day. As per the orders of the Government, even before the formation of the petitioner Corporation and after the present Management took over, they had continued to grant the said benefit and hence, it had become part of the service conditions of the workmen. In fact, the other workers are aggrieved by the grant of rest day wage cannot be a ground to deny wages for these workmen. On the contrary, such benefits should be extended to all workers if the petitioner wants to be a model employer. The comparison with the other private estates has no relevance as the petitioner is a Government Company and is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and they are expected to implement the directive principles of State Policy. .16. It is an admitted case that the petitioner Management is a wholly owned Government enterprise and is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. .16. It is an admitted case that the petitioner Management is a wholly owned Government enterprise and is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. By virtue of Article 37 of the Constitution, the directive principles laid down in part IV of the Constitution are fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the principles in making laws. Article 43 of the Constitution reads as follows: ."43. Living wage, etc., for workers.—The State shall endeavour to secure, by suitable legislation or economic organisation or in any other way, to all workers, agricultural, industrial or otherwise, work, a living wage, conditions of work ensuring a decent standard of life and full enjoyment of leisure and social and cultural opportunities and, in particular, the State shall endeavour to promote cottage industries on an individual or co-operative basis in rural areas." .17. The Supreme Court, while interpreting the provisions of the Plantations Labour Act, had laid the basis of the judgment by bringing it within the purview of Article 42 of the Constitution in its judgment relating to B. Shah vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore [ (1977) 4 SCC 384 ] and the following passage found in paragraph 18 may be usefully reproduced:- .Para 18:".... It has also to be borne in mind in this connection that in interpreting provisions of beneficial pieces of legislation like the one in hand which is intended to achieve the object of doing social justice to women workers employed in the plantations and which squarely fall within the purview of Article 42 of the Constitution, the beneficent rule of construction which would enable the woman worker not only to subsist but also to make up her dissipated energy, nurse her child, preserve her efficiency as a worker and maintain the level of her previous efficiency and output has to be adopted by the Court." 18. In the light of the observations made by the Supreme Court and in order to make a full enjoyment of leisure as enshrined under Article 43 of the Constitution, every workman must be paid wages for the rest day as otherwise, there cannot be any enjoyment of leisure by workman. The fact that neither the Notification under the Minimum Wages Act nor any provision of the Plantations Labour Act provides for rest day wages is immaterial in the present context. The fact that neither the Notification under the Minimum Wages Act nor any provision of the Plantations Labour Act provides for rest day wages is immaterial in the present context. The Government which was manning the plantations before the petitioner Corporation, by taking note of the work done by the three category of workmen, has consciously provided rest day wages for them. Unless there are any change of circumstances, the question of withdrawal of the said benefit does not arise. 19. In fact, the oral evidence of J.James, W.W.1 in I.D. No. 79 of 1991 and also the oral evidence of M. Annadurai, W.W. 1 in I.D. No. 73 of 1992 clearly spoke about the conditions of employment of these categories of workmen and in the cross-examination, the petitioner was not able to impeach those depositions. If it is not a condition of service, the question of the petitioner issuing notice under Section 9-A of the I.D. Act might not have arisen. With regard to the contention that no notice was given in respect of the second respondent Union in I.D. No. 73 of 1992 and that the notice was not published in terms of Rule 57, there is no answer on the side of the Management. The theory of substantial compliance advanced by the learned Additional Advocate General does not hold water in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Case (Cited supra). The Management had not let in any credible evidence before the Tribunal to prove that the nature of work performed by the watchers, sweepers and scavengers are not in any way different. On the contrary, they were only pressurized by the other workmen to withdraw the benefit. In the counter statement filed in I.D. No. 79 of 1991, the following passage is found in paragraph 4:- ".... To put it differently, while all the field workmen, tappers and factory workmen are being paid wages only for the working days and were not paid for the weekly holidays, a small section of the field workers who were deployed as watchers, scavengers and sweepers were getting wages for the weekly holidays. This has created disaffection among the workmen and workmen in other categories also started demanding wages for the weekly holidays." 20. This has created disaffection among the workmen and workmen in other categories also started demanding wages for the weekly holidays." 20. It is strange for the Management to plead on behalf of the other workers who are aggrieved by the payment of rest day wages for a section of the workers, who were employed by the Government and whose services were taken over after the formation of the petitioner Corporation. Under Section 25FFA of the I.D. Act, a workman, whose services were transferred to a new employer, is entitled to have the service conditions continued with the new employer. Further, the number of employees at the time of notice of change was given, was admittedly 114 workers and it is stated that now there are only 55 belonging to this category. Conscious of this fact, the learned counsel for the petitioner Corporation made alternative plea before the Tribunal which is found reflected in paragraph 7 of the reply affidavit dated 16.01.1997 filed in W.P. No. 15228 of 1996. The said averment may be usefully extracted below:- "I was present at the time of hearing of the dispute before the first respondent. I state that counsel for the petitioner corporation argued that the change proposed in the 9A notice was fully justified and as an alternative submission it was urged that if for any reason the first respondent felt that these watchers, sweepers and scavengers have enjoyed this benefit for a certain period and whether they should be deprived of the same, the court may consider payment of some adhoc amount to the existing watchers, sweepers and scavengers...." 21. Since the category of these workmen is only a vanishing tribe, the petitioner Management need not have ventured into withdrawal of the said privilege of rest day wages at the behest of the other workmen. There is a clear distinction between the two categories of workmen and the objection now raised must have been taken note of by the Government, which is the real owner of the plantation at the time of granting such direction. The comparison with the private estates in and around Kanyakumari District has no relevance and in law, only the comparables can alone be compared. The comparison with the private estates in and around Kanyakumari District has no relevance and in law, only the comparables can alone be compared. Further, the reference to Plantations Labour Act and the Notification under the Minimum Wages Act has no relevance in deciding the issue whether the workman should get wages for the rest day or not. What has been fixed in those enactments is only the statutory minimum and it does not forbid the workmen getting higher than what was fixed therein. 22. In the light of the above, both the writ petitions are misconceived and devoid of merits. Accordingly, they are dismissed with cost of Rs.5000/-to be paid to each of the second respondent. The petitioner Management is directed to implement the Award within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.