The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to decide disputed facts under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act when there is no employer-employee relationship between the parties.

JUDGMENT

(Prayers: W.P. No. 8634 of 2003 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records from the file of the 1st respondent herein in C.P. Nos.158 to 166, 168 to 173, 175, 176 and 178 to 183/1999 on its file and to quash the common order dated 18.12.2001.

W.P. No.8790 of 2003 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records from the file of the 1st respondent herein in C.P. Nos.369 to 391 of 2000 on its file and to quash the common order dated 18.12.2001.

W.P. No.7944 of 2005 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records from the file of the 1st respondent herein in C.P. Nos.14 to 36 of 2002 on its file and to quash the common order dated 31.05.2004.

W.P. No.25872 of 2018 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records from the file of the 1st respondent herein in C.P. Nos.202 to 212 of 2013 on its file and to quash the common order dated 17.08.2017)

Common Order

1.Assailing the respective orders passed by the 1st respondent in allowing the respective computation petitions filed by respondents 3 to 25 claiming wages, the present writ petitions have been filed.

2. The respondents herein have filed computation petitions for various periods between October, 1998 and February, 2013, claiming wages from the petitioner, on account of the termination of their services. The respective computations were allowed by the 1st respondent/Labour Court vide the aforesaid impugned orders by holding that workmen/respondents 3 to 25 are entitled to receive the compensation amount.

3. For the sake of brevity, the petitioner and the respondents 3 to 25 will be referred to as ‘petitioner’ and ‘workman’.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that it is an industrial unit engaged in the manufacture of cement. The petitioner had entered into a contract arrangement with the 2nd respondent, who is a registered contractor under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, and the 2nd respondent had engaged the services of respondents 3 to 25 with the petitioner. It is the further case of the petitioner that all the payments towards wages for the aforesaid workmen were paid by the 2nd respondent and the petitioner, in no way, was associated with the workman.

5. It is the further case of the petitioner that voluntary retirement scheme was floated by the petitioner for its employees, who were employed in the unit as well as at the mines as a means of cost cutting measure due to financial implication, which had the approval of the Union as well and, accordingly, many employees had opted for VRS. Due to the economic condition and the viability to run the unit, the petitioner, after discussion with the 2nd respondent and also their Union, VRS for the contract workers, who were employed by the 2nd respondent was also discussed and in terms with the arrangement with the 2nd respondent, the contract workers were given VRS on payment of ex-gratia amount along with terminal and statutory benefits and out of the 171 contract workmen, 148 workmen opted for VRS barring the 23 persons, who are the respondents here.

6. It is the further case of the petitioner that the contract workmen had signed an agreement u/s 18 (1) of the ID Act and also submitted resignation letter and opted for VRS scheme and all the contract workmen were paid the terminal benefits by the 2nd respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that the terminal benefits were paid by the 2nd respondent to the contract workmen including respondents 3 to 25 and not by the petitioner.

7. It is the further case of the petitioner that the workmen herein, who were employed under the contractor and receiving wages from the contractor, raised an industrial dispute before the Deputy Commissiner of Labour, Salem,