- (1.)THE writ petitioner is a public limited company. In this writ petition, the challenge is to the order made by the first respondent Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, Vellore, dated 19.11.1998. By the aforesaid order, the first respondent informed the petitioner management that by an order dated 21.7.1997, the approval sent by the department in Form III read with Rule 3(1) and (4)(4) of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays) Rules, 1959 (for short 'NAFH Rules') framed under Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays) Act, 1958 (for short 'NAFH Act') stood cancelled.
(2.)THE writ petition was admitted on 18.12.1998 and an interim-stay was granted on the same day. Due to the default on the part of the respondents, the interim order was also made absolute on 27.12.2002. THE obligation of the employer was to send a form of list of holidays year after year for approval by the competent authority. It is stated by the counsel for the petitioner that since the impugned order relates to the year 1997, the writ petition has become infructuous and therefore it may be dismissed as such. But, in the present case, since the petitioner had enjoyed an interim order for over ten years and the issue is likely to crop up year after year, this Court declined to accede to the request made by the counsel for the petitioner.
Thereafter, Mr.Sanjay Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and the second respondent trade union have entered into a settlement on 17.1.1997 under section 18(1). Para 25 of the said settlement deals with national and festival holidays applicable to the workmen. Paragraphs 25.1 and 25.2 may be extracted below:-25.1. It has been agreed to by both the parties that the entire factory will work on all the days in a week except the days, which are National Holidays and Deepavali (Festival Holiday) as per the National and Festival Holidays Act, 1958. However, the workmen are allowed to avail four optional Festival Holidays out of the Festival Holidays shown in Annexure IV as required under the National and Festival Holidays Act, 1958, which will be discussed and decided with the union during December every year and for the immediate next year, the optional festival holidays, as well who should avail.25. 2. It is agreed between both the parties that the workmen will however be eligible for Optional Holidays as per the requirement of work and they will not be entitled for any extra wages/allowances, etc. for staggering the holidays.".

According to the petitioner management, pursuant to the settlement they have informed the first respondent by letters dated 25.3.1997 and 19.4.1997 that there are 16 festival holidays besides four compulsory national holidays and sought for his permission to approve their action and send in turn Form III of the NAFH Rules. The first respondent by letter dated 17.7.1997 granted approval in Form III but however added 'Deepavali' also another additional holiday, thereby making the total festival holidays as 17 holidays. Out of these 17 holidays, the workmen have been given the choice to avail five festival holidays. But he has however made Deepavali as a compulsory festival holiday thereby making the choice to four. Therefore, when the same procedure was sought to be followed for the calendar year 1998, the first respondent by the impugned order removed the earlier approval granted under form III, which has become the subject matter of the present writ petition.

(3.)THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of the first respondent is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provision of NAFH Act. THE workmen have no objection in the procedure adopted by the management. In fact, they are bound by a settlement by which they have also agreed to adopt the procedure laid down by the management. THE workmen are no way prejudiced because they will be getting the nine holidays as per the NAFH Act (4 compulsory national holidays and 5 optional festival holidays).
The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Karnataka High Court reported in 2005-3-LLJ 12 in Bharat Fritz Werner Karmika Sangha -vs- Bharat Fritz Werner Limited and another. In that judgment, when there was a dispute between two rival unions regarding choosing of the festival holidays, the Karnataka High Court held that the majority trade unions' view must prevail with the authority who decides such an issue.