JUDGMENT :

S.M. Subramaniam, J.

1. The common Award, dated 11.10.2012 passed by the Fourth Respondent-Labour Court in I.D. No. 58 of 2011 is under challenge in the present Writ Petition.

2. The Writ Petitioner states that he joined in the Third Respondent-Company on 20.1.2006 as identified by the Respondents 1 & 2. His last drawn Salary was Rs. 6,000 per month. The Writ Petitioner was terminated from service without any enquiry and without following the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The termination was effected from 10.8.2010. The Writ Petitioner states that he worked for more than 300 days and was employed as a Machine Operator along with other Machine Operators in the Third Respondent-Company. Respondents 1 & 2 have applied license to only supply manpower to the Third Respondent and the Writ Petitioner worked for more than 300 days at the time of his termination. Though the Respondents 1 & 2 had obtained license to supply manpower to the Third Respondent-Company, no valid original license/renewal was produced either by Respondents 1 & 2 or by the Third Respondent-Company, for the reasons best known to them.

3. Respondents have taken a stand before the Labour Court that the Writ Petitioner was not the direct Employee of the Third Respondent-Company and the Writ Petitioner never worked under the Third Respondent-Company. The Third Respondent-Company had not supervised the work of the Writ Petitioner. The Writ Petitioner has no skill or educational qualification or previous work experience to work as a Machine Operator. The Writ Petitioner was examined as WW 1 and Exs. W 1 to W 16 were marked and they were treated as common evidence in I.D. No. 58 of 2011 and in other connected cases. On the side of the Management, one Mr. Sivaraman was examined as MW 1 and marked only copies of certain documents as Exs. M1 to M7 as common evidence.

4. The Labour Court dismissed the Industrial Dispute as well as the connected cases by a Common Award, dated 11.10.2012 with a finding that the Writ Petitioner joined and worked under the Third Respondent-Company through Respondents 1 & 2 Contractors. The Labour Court further observed that Respondents 1 & 2 paid Wages as well as the Employees contribution and there was no relationship of Employer-Employee between the Third Respondent and the Writ Petitioner. Thus, the Writ Petitioner cannot seek any relief as against the Third Respondent-Company since the Writ Petitioner had worked only under Respondents 1 & 2, who were the Contractors engaged by the Third Respondent-Company.

5. The learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner emphasised that Respondents 1 & 2 have not examined any witness on their side and not produced any documentary evidences to substantiate their claim. Respondents 1 & 2 have raised their claim on the basis of licenses issued by the concerned authorities and no valid original license was produced by Respondents 1 & 2 as well as the Third Respondent before the Labour Court. The Labour Court had prejudged the issue and held that the Writ Petitioner was not the Contract Employee of the Third Respondent. When the Third Respondent-Company exercised complete control over the work of the Writ Petitioner as a Machine Operator, the findings recorded by the Labour Court, in the absence of any materials available on record, that the Writ Petitioner was not supervised by the Third Respondent-Company is contrary to the facts and the evidence. Citing all these discrepancies, the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner is of an opinion that the Award of the Labour Court is perverse and is liable to be scrapped.

6. The learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner reiterated that the Xerox copies of the documents marked by the Management were admitted by the Labour Court and such a procedure adopted is contrary to the established principles of law. Even there are many discrepancies in the documents and the original documents were not verified by the Labour Court. This apart, the Atte