The main legal point established in the judgment is the authority of the appellate authority under the Beedi and Cigar Act to decide the relationship between the parties and the relevance of oral evidence and ID cards in determining employment status.

W.P. Nos. 4821 and 4822 of 1998 were filed by the Management of D.C. Diwan Mohideen Beedi Factory while W.P. Nos. 5804 and 5805 of 1998 were filed by the Management of S.K.S. Pookoodal Beedi Factory and were directed against the order dated 312. 1997 passed by the appellate authority under the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act 1966.

2. W.P. No. 13254 of 1998 is filed by one Zulekha and 37 others against the common order dated 210. 1997 passed by the Labour Court, Salem in various C.P. Nos.

3. W.P. No. 14036 of 1998 is filed by one Ansarbi and 55 others against the common order dated 210. 1997 passed by the Labour Court, Salem in C.P. Nos. 286 of 1996, etc.

4. With the consent of the parties, the writ petitions were heard together and a common order is passed.

5. Heard the arguments of Mr. M.R. Raghavan, learned counsel appearing for the Management and Mr. S. Arunachalam, learned counsel appearing for the workmen and perused the records.

6. The case of the workmen in the appeal filed before the appellate Authority was that they were working as home workers employed by the contractors under the trade mark owners for several years. During the year 1994, they became members of the Salem District Beedi, Cigar and Tobacco General Workers Union. They filed petitions for minimum wages before the Labour Court and, therefore, aggrieved by the same, the respondent Management orally terminated their services. The respondent Management denied the employment of their workmen and, therefore, contended that since they were their workmen, question of orally terminating their services does not arise. Therefore, they filed appeals under Section 31(2) of the Beedi and Cigar workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966 [for short, Beedi and Cigar Act] and their appeals were assigned different numbers and notices were ordered to the respondent Managements.

7. W.P. No. 4821 of 1998 related to 28 workers. All the 28 workers deposed before the appellate authority as W.W.1 to W.W.28. On the side of the Management, one Badusha Mohideen was examined as M.W.1. The workmen filed 8 documents and they were marked as Exs. W.1 to W.8 while 5 documents, which were marked as Exs. R.1 to R.5, were marked on the side of the Management.

.8. The appellate authority, on an analysis of all the materials placed before it, came to the conclusion that it was a fact that on 112. 1994, the Trade Union of the petitioners sent a letter to the Inspector of Labour complaining that the trade mark owners under whose behest the beedi workers were engaged, are not paying minimum wages and other statutory benefits under the Act and they are not issuing Identity Cards (ID Cards) for the workmen. Further, on 212. 1995, the Trade Union gave a letter to the district Collector complaining about the non-payment of minimum wages and issuance of ID Cards to them. They also stated that 1119 workers, who have been in the Registers, have been recorded as workers. Similar complaints have also been sent to various higher officials in the Labour Department. Based upon this, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem directed Inspector of Labour to investigate the same and provide Identity Cards to the workers mentioned by the Union. Based upon the said direction, the Assistant Inspector of Labour and Deputy Inspector of Labour investigated the matter and granted ID Cards to workmen and the workmen herein filed those cards which were marked as Ex. W.1 series.

9. However, the respondent Management stated that under Rule 41 of the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Rules, 1978, the ID Cards will have to be given under Form E and that has to be signed either by the Beedi and Cigar Establishment or contractors and, therefore, the ID Cards given by the Inspectors of the Labour were not valid.

10. The appellate authority rejected the objection and held that it was unnecessary to go into the question as to who is the authority empowered to grant