LexSUNNY KRUIAKORE AND ORS. versus STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SUNNY KRUIAKORE AND ORS. v. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. AUGUST 16, 1996 [J.S. VERMA AND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.] Labour law: Plantations Labour Act, 1960: Section 1(5) proviso. Fragmentation of big estates-Prevention of-Prior to amendment of principal Act such big estates sold to different purchasers in smaller units-State Govemment applied provisions of principal Act to such new units-Writ petition filed by purchasers dismissed by High Cowt-Held : A B c Words "this Act" in proviso to S. 1(5) meant pri11cipal Act of 1951 a11d 11ot A111e11dme11t Act of 1960-High Court rightly refused relief to pur- D chasers-f'la11tations Labour (Amendment) Act, 1960, S. 2. Sectio11 1(5)-0bject of-Held: to prevent fragmentatio11 of big estates so as to avoid applicability of pri11cipal Act of 1951-Froviso to S. 1(5) saved only those estaces ad111easzuing less than statutory niininutnz area or e111ploy- E ing less than statutory niinintunt nzunber of persons. There was a big rubber estate out of which three parcels of land were sold. The appellants purchased different parcels of lands. After the pur· chases, these estates were being managed separately and had separate Rubber Board Registrations. F The Plantations Rubber Act, 1951 was amended by the Plantations Labour (Amendment) Act, 1960 by which a new sub-section (5) was intro· duced in Section 1 of the Principal Act. The State Government issued a notification under Section 1(5) declaring that even those estates which admeasured less than the statutory minimum area would be covered by the provisions of the Principal Act. The proviso to Section l (5) of the G Principal Act, however, restricted the State Government from making any such declaration in respect of estates which admeasured less than the statutory minimum area "immediately before the commencement of this Act". Since the lands of the appellants came within the purview of the H 709 710 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 11996] SUPP. 4S.C.R. · A Principal Act, the State Government issued notices to the appellants requiring them to comply with the provisions of the Principal Act. B The appellants filed a writ petitiu.: in the High Court challenging the validity of the amendment incorporating new Section 1(5) of the Principal Act as well as of the notification and the Notices. The said writ petition was dismissed by the High Court. Being aggrieved the appellants preferred the present appeal. On behalf of the appellants it was contended that on the date the Amendment Act came into force the provisions of Section 1(5) would not C apply to the appellants' lands since the words 'this Act' in the proviso to Section 1(5) referred to the Amendment Act and not the Principal Act. Dismissing the appeal, this Court D HELD : 1.1. A provision had to be made with a view to prevent E F fragmentation of the big estates so as to avoid the applicability of the Plantations Rubber Act, 1951. This was sought to be achieved by enacting sub-section (5) of Section 1 in the Principal Act. This is also evident from the statement of Objects & Reasons accompanying the Plantations Labour (Amendment) Act, 1960. The proviso to Section 1 (5) was clearly meant to save from the operation of the said Act only those estates which were less than the statutory minimum area or in which less than the statutory minimum number of persons were employed. [714-E-H] 1.2. There is no warrant for interpreting the words 'This Act' in the proviso to Section 1(5) as meaning the Amendment Act. Section 2 of the Amendment Act, 1960 brought about the amendments in Section 1 and provided that sub-sections ( 4) and (5) shall be substituted in the Principal Act. The proviso is an integral part of sub-section (5). With the insertion of sub-section (5) in the Principal Act the whole of the sub-section (5) G became a part of the Principal Act and the reference to 'this Act' can only mean the Principal Act of 1951 and cannot, by any stretch of imagination be regarded as meaning the Amendment Act of 1960. Therefore, the High Court was right in not granting any relief to the appellants as their estates did not fall within the ambit of proviso to Section 1(5) of the Principal Act H of 1951. [715-A-C] SUNNYKRUIAKOREv. STATE[KIRPAL,J.] 711 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2677 of A 1977. From the Judgment and Order dated 17.1.77 of the Kerala High· Court in W. Application No. 22 of 1972. Ms. Mana Chakraborty and R.K. Meht
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.