The main legal point established in the judgment is that the principal employer should not be implicated in an industrial dispute if there is no employer-employee relationship between the principal employer and the worker.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the 1st respondent, Presiding Officer, Second Additional Labour Court, Chennai from proceeding with the adjudication of I.D.No.607 of 2003 in so far as the Petitioner is concerned and thereby render justice.)

1. The relief sought for in the writ petition is to forbear the 1st respondent, Presiding Officer, Second Additional Labour Court, Chennai from proceeding with the adjudication of I.D.No.607 of 2003 in so far as the petitioner is concerned.

2. The writ petitioner is the Management of Ford India Private Limited. The petitioner states that the 2nd respondent was an employee of the 3rd respondent M/s.Haden International Group India(P) Ltd., and without making any demand upon the petitioner, the 2nd respondent has sought to raise an Industrial Dispute for his alleged non-employment by the 3rd respondent, making the petitioner as a party in the Industrial Dispute.

3. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that in similar situation, where a principal employer was sought to be roped in the proceedings under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act was pleased to allow the writ petition at the instance of the Principal employer.

4. In this regard, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner solicited the attention of this Court that the order of appointment was issued by the 3rd respondent Contractor. The Contract of employment of the 2nd respondent dated 15th November 1999 is enclosed in Page No.1 of the typed set of papers filed along with the writ petition.

5. On a perusal of the contract of employment, the same reveals that the 3rd respondent is the party to the Contract of employment. Even the order of termination, is enclosed in page No.17 of the typed set of papers are also reveals that the General Manager of M/s.Haden International Group India Private Limited, issued the order of termination. Thus, the writ petitioner has established a Prima facie ground that the order of appointment as well as the order of termination were issued by the 3rd respondent and therefore, the 3rd respondent is the necessary party in the Industrial Dispute. As per the ESI Records, the 3rd respondent is responsible in respect of the 2nd respondent workman. The 3rd respondent is the employer as far as the 2nd respondent is concerned.

6. It is further contended that even in case, an Award is passed in favour of the workman and if the 3rd respondent fails to execute the Award, then the Principal employer is liable for the execution of the Award and therefore, the rights of the workman is well protected under the provisions of the Act and under these circumstances, the writ petitioner Management need not be roped into the proceedings unnecessarily. The liability of the Principal employer is undoubtedly during the period in which the Contract was in force.

7. The similar issue was already considered by this Court in W.P.Nos.25207 & 25208 of 2003 dated 18.09.2018 and the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:

“14. However, the learned counsel for both sides would submit that, since some obligation is there to pay the wages, if ultimately the employee succeeded before the Industrial Tribunal, that obligation has to be fulfilled, not by a contractor but only by the principal employer. In this context, Section 21 of the Contract Labour Act provides the following:

"21. Responsibility for payment of wages.- (1) A contractor shall be responsible for payment of wages to each worker employed by him as contract labour and such wages shall be paid before the expiry of such period as may be prescribed.

(2) Every principal employer shall nominate a representative duly authorized by him to be present at the time of disbursement of wages by the contractor and it shall be the duty of such representative to certify the amounts paid as wages in such manner as may be prescribed.

(3) It shall be the duty of the contractor to ensur