In an industrial dispute, the initial burden of proof lies on the workmen to establish foundational facts regarding their alleged direct employment and the perennial nature of their duties. Without satisfying this onus, no obligation shifts to the management to disprove the claim.

JUDGMENT :

N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.

1. Heard Mr. A. Dasgupta, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. B. Das, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents.

2. The Petitioner Union has instituted the present writ petition assailing an Award dated 06.02.2018, passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT)-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati, in Ref. Case No.02/2016.

3. The Petitioner Union has projected that its members were employed directly by the Inland Waterways Authority of India (IWAI), against various posts on contingency basis and/or on payment of lump sum monthly wage, on verbal agreements till 2007, and thereafter although they were continuing to be so engaged under the direct control of the Inland Waterways Authority of India, their wages and salaries were being paid through the Inland Waterways Authority of India (Assam Sector) Marine Workers’ Development Society. Thereafter, the IWAI authorities had engaged the members of petitioner Union by way of issuance of appointment letters for a period of 89 (eighty nine) days and the members of the Petitioner Union were working in Dhubri to Sadiya stretch of river Brahmaputra which is identified as Inland Waterways No.2 by IWAI. It is further projected that in the year 2013, the IWAI entered into agreements with contractors for manning, maintenance and operation of 5 (five) numbers of vessels of IWAI, along with the workers deployed in the vessels, which includes the members of the petitioner Union. It is submitted that although 25 (twenty five) members of the Petitioner Union were so employed, the remaining 61 (sixty one) members of the union continued to be employed directly by the IWAI.

Being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the IWAI authorities to issue orders engaging the petitioner and having required their services to be placed under the contractors, the petitioner Union raised an industrial dispute for protection of 94 (ninety four) numbers of marine vessel crews in consequence of the decision of the IWAI for engagement of contractors to man, operate and maintain vessels owned by IWAI. A 10 (ten) point charter of demand was so raised in the conciliation proceedings held. It is projected that the competent authority had issued a conciliation notice dated 30.04.2013, fixing 08.05.2013, for the conciliation proceedings. However it is projected that in the said conciliation proceedings, a settlement could not be arrived between the parties. On the failure of the said conciliation proceedings, the matter being referred to the Appropriate Government, the Appropriate Government vide notification dated 13.01.2016, referred the dispute to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT)-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati, for adjudication. The reference being so received by the CGIT, the same was registered as Ref. Case No.02/2016. The CGIT after considering the evidences coming on record and upon hearing the parties to the proceeding, proceeded vide Award dated 06.02.2018, to hold that the IWAI did not act in the matter in any unjustified manner and that the members of the petitioner Union were not directly employed by the IWAI on casual basis or temporary basis for discharging works which were perennial in nature. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the memb