Labour IRAC

LABOUR AND INDUSTRIAL LAW
“RAJANGAM SECY DISTT BEEDI WORKERS VS STATE

AIR 1991 SC 216”
SUBMITTED BY:
Sonal
PRN NO.- 15010223072
GROUP-A
BA LLB (2015-20)
Of
Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA

Symbiosis International University, PUNE
In
September, 2019
UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF
MR. PURVISH MALKAN

CERTIFICATE
The Project entitled “RAJANGAM SECY DISTT BEEDI WORKERS VS

STATE AIR 1991 SC 216” submitted to the Symbiosis Law School,
NOIDA for Comparative Constitution as part of internal assessment is
based on my original work carried out under the guidance of from to.
The research work has not been submitted elsewhere for award of any
degree.
The material borrowed from other sources and incorporated in the
thesis has been duly acknowledged.
I understand that I myself could be held responsible and accountable
for plagiarism, if any, detected later on.
Signature of the candidate:
Date: 07/09/2019
FACTS
A letter petition received from the District Beedi Worker's Union,
Tirunelveli in the State of Tamil Nadu was treated as an application
under Article 32 of the Constitution and notice was ordered intially to
three factories referred to in the said letter and later to other beedi
manufacturing units within the State. In the letter, complaint was
made about manipulation of records regarding employees, non-
payment of appropriate dues for work taken, failure to implement the
provisions of the labour laws, prevalence of contract labour system
etc.
There was a connected petition also relating to the same subject
matter with different ancillary relief‘s covering employment of child
labour and implementation of the Beedi an cigar workers Act
1966.Court decided to to deal with both the applications together.
On 24th October, 1989 court appointed a social organization by name
'Society for Community Organization Trust (SOCCO) for making
appropriate investigation and furnish a report to the court. The Trust
submitted its report, which was then circulated to the Respondent
State Government and the beedi manufacturers. On the direction of
the Court for formulating a scheme, two Schemes came to be
formulated, one by the State Government and the other by the
petitioners. The Court directed that the terms should be settled for one
Scheme to be accepted by the Court, and given time to the Union of
India to respond to the same. Union of India filed certain objections.
The court rejects the objections and disposing of the petitions and the
State Government of Tamil Nadu was directed to implement the
scheme formulated. The Court further directed the Tamil Nadu State
Legal Aid and Advisory Board to undertake supervision for
implementation of the directions for three years and the State
government was directed to co-ordinate in the implementation.
ISSUE
Whether the workers working in manufacturing and allied industries
have a fundamental right to work in a healthy environment even
though a large number of children are employed in this occupation?
RULE
The Beedi And Cigar Workers (Conditions Of Employment) Act, 1966,
The Beedi Workers Welfare Cess Act, 1976, The Beedi Workers Welfare
Fund Act, 1976, Article 321 of the Constitution Of India 1949, The
Cine-workers Welfare Fund Act, 1981
ANALYSIS
The right to safe working environment has been recognized for the last
80 years. To begin with, it was only recognition in principle. This was
followed by recognition that if an injury was suffered at the workplace
the employer was liable to pay compensation. Subsequently this was
expanded to include occupational diseases. Over the years, the
modalities and procedures required to fulfill this right have been fallen
into place. These include regular medical examination, handing over
medical reports to the workers and frequent inspection of the work
premises. Certain health care aspects of the workers have also been
recognized. These include the provisions under the ESI Act for
providing free medical treatment to registered employees, and under
the Factories Act for providing regular checkups, first aid kits and in
certain circumstances also ambulance rooms and vans.
The Court find that tobacco manufacturing was indeed hazardous to

health child labour in this trade should be prohibited so employment of
children should be stopped either immediately or in a phased manner
but should be done away with in three years by the states. In view of
the health hazards included in the manufacturing process, every
worker including children, if employed, should be insured for a
minimum amount of Rs. 50,000/ and the incidence should not be
passed on to the workman.
1
Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part
(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the
enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs,
including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto
and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the
rights conferred by this Part
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause ( 1 )
and ( 2 ), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the
local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme
Court under clause ( 2 )
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise
provided for by this Constitution
The Supreme Court further passed the directions that tobacco
manufacturing is indeed health hazardous. Child labour in this trade
should therefore be prohibited as far as possible and employment of
child labour should be stopped either immediately or in a phased
manner to be decided by the State Governments but within a period
not exceeding three years from now. The provisions of Child Labour
(Prohibition & Regulation) Act, 1986 should be strictly implemented.
The Beedi Workers Welfare Cess Act, 1976 and the Beedi Workers
Welfare Fund Act, 1976 which contain beneficial provisions should be
implemented in the true spirit and since they are legislations of the
Central Government, the machinery of the Central Government should
be made operational in the area. In view of the health hazard involved
in the manufacturing process, every worker including children, if
employed, should be insured for a minimum amount of Rs 50,000 and
the premium should be paid by the employer and the incidence should
not be passed on to the workman.
In this case Supreme Court held that:
1 The Beedi and Cigar Workers (Condition of Employment) Rules, 1968

should be strictly implemented and once that is done the evil of not
furnishing the books to the home workers would be eradicated.
2. An establishment of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner with

full equipment for the purpose of implementation of the Statute should
be located within the area and the Regional provident Fund
Commissioner should have directions to enforce the Act in all aspects.
This establishment should start functioning within three months from
now.
3. The labour laws as also the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of
Employment) Act should be strictly enforced so that the workers get
their legitimate dues and the conditions of employment improve.
4. Tobacco manufacturing has indeed health hazards. Child labour in

this trade should therefore be prohibited as far as possible and
employment of child labour should be stopped either immediately or in
a phased manner to be decided by the State Government but within a
period not exceeding three years from now. The provisions of Child
Labour Abolition Act, 1986 should be strictly implemented.
5. The Union Government is directed to look into the aspect whether

contract labour system is indispensable in this trade and take its final
decision one way or the other within six months from now.
6. Beedi trade is a flourishing one and exploitation of labour is
rampant in this trade. A governmental labour establishment should he
located in the area with full complement to answer the requirements of
the matter.
7. Since Beedi manufacturing process is carried more outside the

factory than within, the system of maintaining the registers as a
regulating practice has become necessary. Great care should,
therefore be taken to ensure the maintenance of the register system
as the bulk of the employees outside the factories can be regulated
through the record maintained in the registers.
8. The Beedi Workers Welfare Cess Act, 1976 and the Beedi 359
Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1976 which contain beneficial provision
should be implemented in the true spirit and since they are legislations
of the Central Government, the machinery of the Central Government
should be made operational in the area.
9. It should be ensured that pass hooks are maintained in the names

of actual workers.
10. The Welfare Fund should be properly administered and in the case
of death of workman appropriate assistance should be extended out of
the Fund quickly.
11. In view of the health hazard involved in the manufacturing

process, every worker including children, if employed should be
insured for a minimum amount of Rs.50,000 and the premium should
be paid by the employer and the incidence should not be passed on to
the workman.
12. The implementation of the scheme within the State in an effective

manner would require to be supervised by an independent external
agency.
CONCLUSION
The court stated that the implementation of the scheme within the
State in an effective manner would require to be supervised by an
independent external agency. The Tamil Nadu State Legal Aid & Advice
Board can be entrusted with this responsibility. A three year period of
such supervision, in court opinion, would meet the requirement and at
the end of such period the scheme is expected to become effectively
operative. The court, therefore, require the Tamil Nadu Board to
undertake the supervision from January, 1992 and direct the Tamil
Nadu Government and the said Board to coordinate the
implementation. The Secretary of the Tamil Nadu Board Mr. Raja, who
would be mainly in-charge of the field job, shall be paid a sum of Rs.
1,500 (fifteen hundred) per month from January 1992, as an
allowance to meet out of pocket expenses by the State Government
for the period he does the work as Secretary of the Board.

Labour IRAC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Labour IRAC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Labour IRAC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LABOUR AND INDUSTRIAL LAW

“RAJANGAM SECY DISTT BEEDI WORKERS VS STATE

PRN NO.- 15010223072

Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA

UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF

MR. PURVISH MALKAN

The Project entitled “RAJANGAM SECY DISTT BEEDI WORKERS VS

Signature of the candidate:

The Court find that tobacco manufacturing was indeed hazardous to

In this case Supreme Court held that:

1 The Beedi and Cigar Workers (Condition of Employment) Rules, 1968

2. An establishment of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner with

4. Tobacco manufacturing has indeed health hazards. Child labour in

5. The Union Government is directed to look into the aspect whether

7. Since Beedi manufacturing process is carried more out- side the

9. It should be ensured that pass hooks are maintained in the names

11. In view of the health hazard involved in the manufacturing

12. The implementation of the scheme within the State in an effective

You might also like