The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Labour Court cannot entertain claim petitions and adjudicate the merits and demerits of the rights of the workman under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act without a pre-existing right or entitlement.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the award passed by the 2nd respondent made in C.P.No.267 of 2009 dated 31.05.2012, quash the same.)

1. The Award dated 31.05.2012 passed in C.P.No.267 of 2009 is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The writ petitioner, who is the Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, questioned the order passed by the second respondent on the ground that the first respondent was a Casual Labourer. That apart, the petitioner is having its own service conditions. The first respondent admitted before the Labour Court that he did not appear before the Committee constituted, pursuant to the report of Justice Khalid Commission. Justice Khalid Commission was appointed for the purpose of absorbing the Contract Labourers.

3. When the first respondent had not even appeared before the Committee constituted, there is no reason to consider the claim set out in the application filed by the first respondent before the second respondent-Labour Court.

4. The first respondent had not worked as a Contract Labourer and therefore, he had not appeared before the Committee constituted, pursuant to the report of Justice Khalid Commission. If at all he worked as a Contract Labourer, he would have claimed the benefit under 12(3) Settlement, dated 10.08.2007, which was entered into by the TANGEDCO with the Labour Unions followed by B.P. (F.B) No.44, dated 06.09.2007 issued by the TANGEDCO, after the recommendation of absorption of Contract Labourers by Justice Khalid Commission.

5. The issue in this regard regarding to absorption is considered by this Court in W.P.Nos.22183 to 22187 of 2005, dated 27.09.2019 and the relevant portion of the order stands extracted hereunder:-

"2. The writ petitioner is the Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, who filed the present writ petition on the ground that the claim petition was allowed based on the orders of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board issued in memo dated 13.12.1996. The benefit of ex-gratia payment granted to the contract labourers are not based on the settlement. Contrarily, the ex-gratia payments were granted based on the request made by the Union. While extending the benefit of ex-gratia payment, certain conditions were imposed and paragraph 4 of the memo dated 13.12.1996 reads as under:

“4. Based on the above decision, all officers of the Board are requested to identify the Contract Labourers who have completed 5(Five) years of regular service as on 31.3.96 and send the above particulars for the year 1995-96 within a month from the date of receipt of this memo. After verifying all the records and identifying the Contract Labourers who have completed 5(Five) years of regular service as on 31.3.96, a list showing the particulars of Contract Labourers as prescribed and enclosed along with this Memo, should be prepared and ensured and certified by the Officers concerned that the Contract Labourers have served in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board regularly and contemplated 5(Five) years of service as on 31.3.96.”

3. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that there is no pre-existing right in respect of the benefit of ex-gratia payment. Ex-gratia payment does not fall under the terms and conditions of the 12(3) Settlement. This being the factum, an adjudication is mandatory. This apart, the contract labourers were engaged by the Private contractors with whom the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board entered into an agreement. Thus, these contract labourers were not the direct employees of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and there was no employer-employee relationship existed in respect of these contract labourers. Thus, the memo issued by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board cannot have direct implications in respect of the payment of ex-gratia benefit to the contract labourers.

4. The learned counsel for the