LABOUR AND INDUSTRIAL LAW
Case Analysis
Rajangam Secretary, District Beedi Worker’s Union v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
1992 SCC (1) 221
Submitted by: Srishti Nair
Division: A; 2017-22
17010224071; BBA LL. B
Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA
Symbiosis International (Deemed University), Pune.
August, 2021
Mr. Purvish Malkan
CERTIFICATE
The project titled “Case Analysis: Rajangam Secretary, District Beedi Worker’s Union v. State of Tamil Nadu
& Ors. 1992 SCC (1) 221” submitted to the Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA for Labour and Industrial Law
part of Internal Assessment is based on my original work carried out under the guidance of Mr. Purvish Malkan
from July to August 2021. The research work has not been submitted elsewhere for award of any degree. The
material borrowed from other sources and incorporated in the project has been duly acknowledged. I
understand that I myself would be held responsible and accountable for plagiarism, if any, detected later on.
Signature of the Candidate: Srishti Nair
Date: 30th August, 2021
INDEX
[Link]. TOPIC PAGE NO.
1. Introduction 4,5
2. Issues 5
3. Rules 5
4. Analysis 5,6
5. Conclusion 6
RAJANGAM SECRETARY, DISTRICT BEEDI WORKER’S UNION v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU
& ORS.
1992 SCC (1) 221
FACTS
1. The beedi worker’s union of the district of Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu had submitted a letter petition to
the Supreme Court complaining about employee records being manipulated, non-payment of charges
to be paid for the work done, the existence of contract labour system, ineffective implementation of
labour laws etc.
2. The same was treated as an Art.32 application and subsequently, notice was issued to the 3 factories
mentioned in the letter along with the other beedi factories in Tamil Nadu.
3. Additionally, a similar petition was filed drawing attention to the issue of child labour and the failure
to effectively implement “The Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1956”. Both
were clubbed and heard together by the Court.
4. This was followed by the selection of the “Society for Community Organisation Trust", a social entity
on 4th Oct. 1989 with the aim of investigating the alleged claims.
5. Upon reception, the findings of the investigation were dispersed and the State of Tamil Nadu along
with the beedi producers were required to file their reply via affidavits.
6. This was followed by a Court order directing the formulation of Schemes for its consideration on 24th
Jul.1991.
7. 2 schemes, one by the State of Tamil Nadu and another by the petitioners were submitted before the
Court. Subsequently, via an order dated 8th Oct.1991 the Court required the parties to decide upon the
terms of settlement of either of the Scheme which could have been adopted by them.
8. On the 10th Oct. 1991, the parties made representations based on which the Court made the following
order,
"According to our earlier direction, the employers, employees and the State Government through their
representatives met and have sorted out, some of the differences. Matters which are agreed to by all.
and aspects that are not agreed to by the employers have been separately shown. A copy of this may
be served on counsel for the Union of India present in the court today and he is given three weeks to
indicate the responses. The appropriate Ministry of the Government of India to respond to the relevant
aspects."
9. Following this, an affidavit was filed by the Under Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Union Government
and the same was examined by the Court.
ISSUES
1. Whether or not the beedi manufacturing units were involved in malpractices such as manipulating
employee records, withholding the payment of workers and participating in contract labour system.
2. Whether or not the working environment in beedi manufacturing and allied industries was hazardous.
3. Whether or not the labour laws are being implemented effectively.
RULES
1. The Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1956
2. The Child Labour Abolition Act, 1986
3. The Beedi Workers Welfare Cess Act, 1976
4. The Beedi Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1976
ANALYSIS
Petitions in the said case were disposed of as the Court concluded that the objections referred to in the Central
Government’s affidavit fail to stand because they were out of their bounds and fall under the ambit of the
powers granted to the State.
Since time immemorial, child labour has been a blot on our social fabric and it has been rampantly increasing
in factories of products such as beedi, crackers without paying heed to the legal violation and the health
implications of the same. In the said case, while recognising the unsafe nature of work in tobacco industries,
the Court called for precluding child labour, either immediately or in a staged matter as considered fit by the
individual State Governments within 3 years. Likewise, the Union was also required to investigate the issue
of contractual labour work and settle the same within 6 months.
Additionally, based on the Schemes submitted to them the following directions were issued:
1. Stringent application of all the labour laws specifically the “Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of
Employment) Rules 1969” and the “Child Labour Abolition Act, 1986” within 3 months to ensure
proper payment and improvement in working conditions for the labourers.
2. Eradicating the practice of not supplying the home workers with the books.
3. Each area must have a fully equipped and functioning establishment within 3 months for the Regional
Provident Fund manager to be able to effectively implement and enforce the provisions of the Statute.
4. Setting up of a competent governmental labour establishment in each area to look into the matter of
labour exploitation.
5. Ensure the maintenance of records by way of registers to regulate those working outside the factories.
6. Effective implementation of the beneficial provisions provided in the “Beedi Workers Welfare Cess
Act, 1976 and the Beedi Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1976” via Central Government mechanisms.
7. Maintenance of passbooks with the names of those who are working in such factories.
8. In case of the death of a workman, proper and swift administration of assistance vis-a-vis the Welfare
fund is to be ensured.
9. Owing to the hazardous work environment, an insurance of atleast Rs.50,000 is to be bought for all the
employees including children. The burden of paying the premium is the sole responsibility of the
employer and it cannot be passed on to the employees.
The above directions showcase that while there are no two opinions on the detrimental impact of working in
such industries on the health of the employees especially children, the Court has also acknowledged that in
practice child labour in such industries is very widespread and is caused by various socio-economic factors
thus, eradicating the same is not an overnight task. In light of the same, it gave directions for not only doing
away with child labour but also regulating the same by way of insurance, maintenance of records etc. to be
able to reduce the exploitation of children and provide for better conditions in the meantime.
CONCLUSION
It is a well-known fact that in tobacco and allied industries the manufacturing process involved is hazardous
for individuals of all age groups especially children. In this particular case, the Courts have thrown light on
this observation and ensured that the health of the younger generation is not compromised for the sake of
cheap labour. Thus, mandating the need to strictly regulate the said industry to ensure minimum compromise
of people's health.
Further, the Court’s direction of allowing a phased eradication of child labour showcases the enormity of the
scale at which employment of children occurs and also throws, light on the socio-economic factors that have
caused children to work in such harmful industries. Thereby, making it clear that eradicating child labour is
not a one-day job rather it is a revolution in itself which would require working on several factors such as
poverty alleviation, education etc.
Rajangam Secretary, District
Beedi Worker’s Union v. State of
Tamil Nadu & Ors.
by Srishti Nair
Submission date: 28-Aug-2021 09:20AM (UTC+0530)
Submission ID: 1637148121
File name: CASE_LAW_ANALYSIS.[Link] (19.46K)
Word count: 1116
Character count: 5731
1
Rajangam Secretary, District Beedi Worker’s Union v. State of
Tamil Nadu & Ors.
ORIGINALITY REPORT
1 %
SIMILARITY INDEX
1%
INTERNET SOURCES
0%
PUBLICATIONS
0%
STUDENT PAPERS
PRIMARY SOURCES
1
[Link]
Internet Source 1%
Exclude quotes On Exclude matches Off
Exclude bibliography On
