Judgment : In W.P. Nos. 1984 of 2005 and other connected writ petitions, The petitioner is the Management of Salem District Co-operative Milk Producers’ Union Limited. Aggrieved by the Common Order passed by the Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 332 of 2000 and the other connected cases dated 16. 2003, the present writ petitions have been filed. 2. By the Impugned Order, first respondent Labour Court, Salem computed amounts in favour of the contesting respondents/workmen. Initially this Court granted an Interim Stay. Subsequently, when the contesting respondents filed vacate stay applications, a conditional order was passed by this Court. It is stated by the workmen that the conditional order was not complied with. Further, Mr. V. Ragupathi, the learned counsel assisted by Ms. G. Devi states that they have filed Modification Applications and the same are pending and therefore, there was no disobedience on the part of the society. Mr. K.M. Ramesh, the learned counsel appearing for some of the contesting respondents/workmen however states that the conditional order was rendered with a default clause. Since the Management has disobeyed the condition, they are not entitled for the benefit of the Interim Order any longer. Hence, some of the contesting respondents were forced to file Writ Petitions Nos. 2490 of 2008 to 2498 of 2008 seeking for the enforcement of the order of the Labour Court. 3. Since there is no Interim Order, the respondents workmen approached the State Government for Revenue Recovery Certificate under Section 33(c)(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short I.D. Act) and the State Government had also issued a certificate giving direction to the District Collector, Salem to recover the amounts. Since no action was taken by the District Collector, they have come forward to file Writ Petitions Nos. 2490 of 2008 to 2498 of 2008 seeking for a direction to the Revenue Authorities to recover the amounts and pay it to the workers. Those writ petitions were also admitted and clubbed along with the writ petitions filed by the Management of the District Cooperative Milk Producers’ Society. 4. Heard the arguments of Mr. V. Raghupathi and Ms. G. Devi, counsel for the petitioner Management and Mr. K.M. Ramesh, Mr. S. Ayyadurai appearing for the contesting workmen. 5. The contesting workmen moved the Labour Court with the petition under Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 claiming arrears of wages. 4. Heard the arguments of Mr. V. Raghupathi and Ms. G. Devi, counsel for the petitioner Management and Mr. K.M. Ramesh, Mr. S. Ayyadurai appearing for the contesting workmen. 5. The contesting workmen moved the Labour Court with the petition under Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 claiming arrears of wages. According to the workmen, the workmen were employed from as early as in the year 1996 as a Junior Mazdoors, but they were paid on contingent basis. Their basic pay was fixed at Rs. 18/- together with allowances, 6. The Management of the milk society is undertaking multifarious activities and it was constituted as a Co-operative Society managed by a Special Officer. The service conditions of employees working in District Milk Producers Union cannot vary from district to district. But, they are bound by the directions issued by the State level Federation. Even though the respondents workmen have become permanent, the Management had not implemented the scales of pay recommended by the Government on the basis of the Government order which are applicable to permanent workmen. Granting them pay at the rate of Rs. 18/- per month wholly illegal and therefore, they are liable to be fixed in the scale of pay of Rs. 2,550/- to Rs. 3,2000/- and such a scale should be made to come into effect from 2. 1996. Hence, the petitioners have claimed their arrears of wages from 2. 1996 to 30.6.2000 together with interest at the rate of 18%. 7. The claim petitions filed by the workers were numbered as C.P. No. 332 of 2000 and various other numbers and notices were ordered to the Management. Upon notice, the Management had filed a counter statement in respect of each of the Claim Petitions dated Nil. The stand taken by the Management that in respect of the bylaws more particularly Special by law No. 37(a) any service condition of an employee including pay and allowance will have to be fixed by the Personnel Committee. The revised scale of pay introduced by the State Government was taken note of by the Personnel Committee on 8. 1998. The Committee had decided to implement the recommendations made by the Commissioner of Milk Production dated 7. 1998. In that direction, there is no reference to the revised scales for Junior Mazdoors and Junior Factory Assistants. The revised scale of pay introduced by the State Government was taken note of by the Personnel Committee on 8. 1998. The Committee had decided to implement the recommendations made by the Commissioner of Milk Production dated 7. 1998. In that direction, there is no reference to the revised scales for Junior Mazdoors and Junior Factory Assistants. Only the market rates fixed by the District Collector was fixed by them and whenever any revision was made by the Collector, they were also paid accordingly. They also stated that the State Level Federation namely Tamil Nadu Cooperative Milk Producers Federation (TCMPF) had sent proposals to the State Government on 212. 1998 and as soon as the State Government grants permission, the scales of pay for these workmen will be fixed. 8. Before the Labour Court, on behalf of the Management, one Mr. Nagamani was examined as R.W.1. On the side of the workmen, six documents were filed as Exhibits P-1 to P-6 and five documents were filed on the side of the Management and they were marked as Exhibits M-1 to M-5. 9. The Labour Court, on an analysis of the materials placed before it, came to the conclusion that while the demand of the workmen may be justified but since the Personnel Committee had not granted approval in terms of the bye-laws, they will be entitled to get it as soon as the Personnel Committee approves the revised scales of pay for these workmen. On such approval, the workmen should be paid within three months together with the interest at the rate of 6%. Finally, the Labour Court had held that the claims made by the workmen was entitled to be paid after the approval given by the State Level Federation. 10. The counsel for the Management submitted that the Labour Court exercising power under Section 33(c)(2) cannot determine the amounts claimed by the workmen. Having held that it is the Personnel Committee which has to give its approval and in the absence of the said committee’s approval, the claim amounts cannot be computed. 10. The counsel for the Management submitted that the Labour Court exercising power under Section 33(c)(2) cannot determine the amounts claimed by the workmen. Having held that it is the Personnel Committee which has to give its approval and in the absence of the said committee’s approval, the claim amounts cannot be computed. Alternatively, the learned counsel submitted that even some other workers were covered by the writ petition numbering about 11 have agreed to receive the amount paid by the Management and the other workers in the factory have lso received the revised scale on the date of approval by the Personnel Committee and if the present claim is confirmed, it will lead to spate of claims by the other workers which will unsettle the wages paid by the Management. 11. Per contra Mr. K.M. Ramesh, the learned counsel appearing for some of the contesting workmen stated that though the workers were appointed on a contingent basis, they have been working as regular workmen and they are also entitled to get benefits under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 (Tamil Nadu Act 46 of 1981). Under Section 3 of the said Act, if any worker had put in more than 480 days’ of continuous service within a period of 24 calendar months, he will be deemed to have become permanent and consequently is entitled to have his wages paid on par with other permanent workers. 12. Conscious of the said legislation, the State Government issued G.O.Ms. No.21 Animal Husbandry Department dated 14. 1994 regularising as many as 560 workmen working in various District Cooperative Milk Producers Union. The annexure to the said Government Order contains the names of the workman covered by the order. In respect of the workmen in the Management Milk Producers Society Serial Nos. 336 to 353 were listed. In the same Government Order, the State Government had stated in paragraph No.6 which is as follows: “6. The Government accordingly direct that the services of the Casual Labourers in the 14 District Cooperative Milk Producers’ Unions who were appointed irregularly without reference to employment exchange and who have put in 480 days of continuous work during a period of 24 months be regularized by exempting the relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules, 1998, wherever necessary as detailed in the Annexure to this order. The orders will take effect from the date on which the workers satisfy the conditions stipulated in Conferment of Permanency Act and the benefits could be given only from a prospective date.” Therefore, when the State Government had directed the regularization and had also given direction that the order will take effect from the dates on which the workers satisfies the conditions stipulated under the Tamil Nadu Act 46 of 1981, they are also entitled to get the said benefits available to permanent workmen. It is also stated in the Government Order that T.C.M.P.F (State Level Federation) by a circular dated 8. 1981 had directed the workmen under the contingent basis to be brought under regular establishment after two years of service and also to be paid scale of pay of Rs. 750/- to 945/- and the said order was brought into effect on 7. 1991. This said direction was marked as Exhibit P-1. 13. It is also brought to the notice that in respect of Coimbatore District Cooperative Milk Producers Limited, the Management of the society had given a consequential order pursuant to the orders of the Government revision the salary of Junior Mazdoors with effect from 1. 1996 and also fixed their starting scale of pay at Rs. 2,550/-. Even when the workmen made complaint to the Chief Minister’s Grievance Cell, the Special Commissioner for milk Production by a communication dated 3. 1999 informed the Management that the proposals have been sent to the State Government and since the orders are obtained from the State Government and the TCMPF (Tamil Nadu Cooperative Milk Producers Federation), the pay scales will be granted to the workmen. 14. The State Level Federation namely TCMPF by an order dated 3. 2002 informed the Management, which is as follows: “As per the existing system in the Federation, the contingent employees in the fixed pay of Rs. 20+allowances, on completion of two years of satisfactory service, are brought into the regular time scale post carrying the scale of pay of Rs. 2,550/- -3,200/-.” This direction issued by the federation is marked as Exhibit P-6 before the Labour Court. Therefore, the contention of the Management that only the Personnel Committee has to give approval and until such time, the workmen are not entitled to get the revised scales of pay cannot be countenanced. 2,550/- -3,200/-.” This direction issued by the federation is marked as Exhibit P-6 before the Labour Court. Therefore, the contention of the Management that only the Personnel Committee has to give approval and until such time, the workmen are not entitled to get the revised scales of pay cannot be countenanced. The workmen have been directed to be brought under regular establishment by orders of the Government in G.O. Ms. No.21 Animal Husbandry Department dated 14. 1994 in which order itself, it was indicated that the workmen are eligible to get permanent in the light of the Tamil Nadu Act 46 of 1981. When there is a statutory enactment protecting the conditions of service of the workmen, it is not open to the Management to state that without the administrative approval of the Personnel Committee, the scales of pay cannot be implemented to the workmen. On the contrary, by the fixation created by the Permanent Status Act, the workmen have already been deemed to have become permanent. 15. In the other objection that there was no direction by the State Level Federation I.e., TCMPF cannot also be accepted because Exhibit P-6 is a document wherein the TCMPF had clearly directed that the workmen are eligible to be brought under the minimum scales of pay of Rs. 2,550/-. Therefore, the contention raised by the Management that the order of the Labour Court suffers from material irregularity cannot also be accepted. On the contrary, the Labour Court was conscious of the claims made by the workmen, but unfortunately had subordinated their claims subject to the approval by the Personnel Committee. This does not mean that the Personnel Committee gets a role of a superior authority over a statutory enactment made by the Tamil Nadu Legislature and also they do got an overriding power over the direction issued by the TCMPF. 16. In the light of the above, the contentions raised by the Management cannot be accepted. The other contention that this will have cascading effect over the other workmen also cannot be accepted. If the workers are otherwise (sic) eligible to get such salary either by process of the Court or otherwise, this Court cannot nullify the same. This cannot be an explanation. It is immaterial whether other workers will claim similar amounts or not. The other contention that this will have cascading effect over the other workmen also cannot be accepted. If the workers are otherwise (sic) eligible to get such salary either by process of the Court or otherwise, this Court cannot nullify the same. This cannot be an explanation. It is immaterial whether other workers will claim similar amounts or not. The only question before this Court is whether the present contesting respondents are eligible to get the amounts as ordered by the Labour Court, if such a claim is legally valid, the argument advanced by the Management will have to be rejected without any further consideration. 17. As rightly contended by Mr. K.M.Ramesh, learned counsel that because of the pendency of the writ petitions, the Management did not even give the benefits of time scale of pay just to victimize the respondents, even though the workmen were entitled to get the benefit from 4. 2005. By forcing eleven workers to withdraw the cases, the Management cannot defeat the rights of the other workers. This had forced the workmen to file Writ Petition No. 31851 of 2005 seeking for a direction to pay the scale of pay atleast from 4. 20045 onwards. This Court by final order dated 9. 2008 had observed as follows: “6. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners would agree to receive the arrears from 4. 2005 as per the recommendation without prejudice to their claim under the awards of the Labour Court. 7. The statements made by the counsel on either side are recorded. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents, Management to pay the revised scale of pay as per the recommendation of the Personnel Committee dated 8. 2005 with effect from 4. 2005 to the petitioners and also to pay them the entire arrears of pay for the period from 4. 2005 till date and continue to pay the revised pay with all the other consequential benefits. This is without prejudice to the rights of the rival parties in the writ petitions in connection with the Labour Court Awards. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs." 18. In the light of the above, the Writ Petition Nos. 1984, 1985, 1988, 1989, 1990 to 1993, 1995, 1998, 1999, 2126, 2127, 2130, 2132 of 2005 filed by the Management stands dismissed,. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs." 18. In the light of the above, the Writ Petition Nos. 1984, 1985, 1988, 1989, 1990 to 1993, 1995, 1998, 1999, 2126, 2127, 2130, 2132 of 2005 filed by the Management stands dismissed,. The Writ Petitions Nos. 2490 to 2498 of 2008 filed by some of the contesting respondents had become infructuous, in view of this Court dismissing the writ petitions filed by the Management. Therefore, the Writ Petitions Nos. 2490 to 2498 of 2008 stand closed, without further orders. The miscellaneous Petitions for stay as well as vacate stay filed by the workmen and the modification applications filed by the Management will stand dismissed. No costs. 19. Time will be granted for the Management to implement the orders of the Labour Court for 12 weeks from today. It is made clear that there is no requirement for any further approval either from the TCMPF (Tamil Nadu Cooperative Milk Producers Federation) or from the Personal Committee for implementing the orders of the Labour Court.