The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of considering legal precedents, the prohibition against the employer from dispensing with the service of the employee without a reasonable cause under Section 31 of the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act 1966, and the need for the Labour Court to make informed decisions based on a thorough understanding of the legal framework.

1. These writ petitions are filed by the petitioner against the common Award dated 19. 1995 passed by the first respondent Labour Court and made in I.D. Nos. 561 and 567 of 1992 insofar as it denied any relief to the petitioners.

2. The petitioners, along with several other persons, raised a dispute against the SKT Vel Mark Suruttu Company with reference to their non-employment under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [for short, I.D. Act]. The claim of the petitioners was that they were employed for 3 to 10 years and were drawing Rs.900/- per month and they were working for more than 12 hours and the respondents had engaged 80 workers. The petitioners along with other workers joined the Thanjavur District Cigar Workers Union claiming bonus and went on an agitation. They had also gone on strike w.e.f. 20.10.1990. Subsequently, after the withdrawal of the same, when they went to report for work on 210. 1990, the petitioner along with 11 others were denied work. The only ground on which the petitioners were denied work was that they had gone on strike. The Trade Union leaders held talks and when that failed, they moved the Labour Officer and got their dispute referred for adjudication by the first respondent Labour Court.

3. The respondents filed a counter affidavit refuting the stand of the petitioners and stated that at no point of time, they came back to work. Even on 210. 1990, when they came to work, they are ready to give them the materials for rolling cigars but the petitioners never reported to work.

4. The petitioners in these petitions, along with six other persons, who have also raised similar industrial disputes, were heard together by the Labour Court and a common Award dated 19. 1995 was passed.

5. Before the Labour Court, the petitioners examined themselves as W.W.2 and W.W.3 apart from examining other workers as W.W.1, W.W.4 and W.W.5. On the side of the second respondent, S.K.T. Velayutham (since deceased), the then in-charge was examined. While the workmen had filed 24 documents, which were marked as Exs. W.1 to W.24, on the side of the respondents, two documents were filed and they were marked as Exs. M.1 and M.2.

6. The Labour Court, without reference to any legal provision, held that the petitioners are are piece-rate workers and there was no employer – employee relationship between the Cigar rollers and the Management and that no documents were filed to show that they had worked for 12 hours in the establishment. Since they were paid on the basis of the output of cigars rolled by them, it cannot be said that they were employees of the respondents. In paragraph 14 of the Award, the Labour Court showed its utter ignorance of the working of the Beedi and Cigar establishments and the relevant case laws on the said subject. The Labour Court further held that in the absence of any evidence to show the employer – employee relationship between the petitioners and the Management, mere receiving of letters and other documents in the address of the employer cannot create any proof and, therefore, the question of their removal from service does not arise. It also held that the workers cannot be termed to be "workman" within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act. In that view of those findings, it held that the petitioners are not workmen. But, however, if the petitioners come forward to roll cigars on the basis of earlier arrangement, they may be taken by the employer as was done in the past.

7. In this context, it is relevant to refer to the following judgments of the Supreme Court:-

.(a) Hussainbhai, Calicut v. The Alath Factory Thozhilali Union, Kozhikode [(1978) 4 SCC 257]

.(b) Sudhoo v. Haji Lal Mohd. Biri Works [(1990) 4 SCC 37]

8. The Supreme Court in Hussainbhai, Calicut v. The Alath Factory Thozhilali Union, Kozhikode [(1978) 4 SCC 257] and relied on the following passages found in paragraphs 4 to 6:-

Para 4: "This argument is impeccable in laissez faire economics “red