The main legal point established is that the burden of proof lies on the party claiming an employer-employee relationship, and regularisation and permanent absorption can only be granted in accordance with the service rules.

ORDER :

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records made in Award Dated 29.01.2015 in I.D.No.6 of 2003 on the file of Labour Court, Salem and quash the same.

The writ petitions on hand have been instituted challenging the Awards passed in I.D.Nos.6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 19, 322, 324, 325, 326, 367 of 2003 respectively dated 29.01.2015 on the file of the Labour Court, Salem.

2. The writ petitioner is Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board. The petitioner/Board is a Statutory authority established under the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board Act, 1970. The respondents/Workmen filed I.D.Nos.6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 19, 322, 324, 325, 326, 367 of 2003 against the petitioner/TWAD Board, under Section 2(A)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The respondent/workmen served under the petitioner Board as Electrical Assistant from the year 1999 to 2002. The respondents/workmen alleged before the Labour Court that they were orally terminated by the authorities of the petitioner/Board with effect from 01.08.2002. Question the oral termination, the Industrial Disputes were filed before the Labour Court.

3. The petitioner/Board contested the case by filing the counter statement. The petitioner contended that the workmen did not work under the TWAD Board and they were engaged by the private contractor, who have contracted with TWAD Board for execution of certain works. Schemes were maintained through contractors and based on the contracts executed, these workmen were engaged by the private contractors and served in the projects. The employment came to an end soon after the expiry of the contract between the TWAD Board and the private contractors. There was no employer-employee relationship existed between the workmen and the petitioner/TWAD Board, since the TWAD Board had not appointed the these workmen/respondents. The Labour Court allowed the I.Ds and ordered for the reinstatement of the workmen with continuity of services and 25% of back wages. Thus, the petitioner/Board is constrained to move these present writ petitions.

4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners/Board contended that the very findings in the impugned Awards regarding the burden of proof is legally untenable. The workmen, who filed the petitions before the Labour Court, pleaded that they were appointed by the competent authorities of the TWAD Board and orally terminated by such authorities. Thus, the burden of proof is on the workmen, who made such statements and it for the workmen to establish that the employer-employee relationship between the Board and the workmen existed for establishing the cause of action and to maintain the dispute before the Labour Court. In this regard, the Labour Court also held that the workmen are bound to prove employer-employee relationship. However, erroneously arrived a conclusion that the Management has not produced the documents in this regard and therefore, the workmen could not be blamed.

5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners reiterated that the Labour Court erroneously held that since in respect Exhibit P3 notice dated 08.01.2010 calling for records, the respondent did not produce and therefore, it could not be held that the Workmen had not proved the completion of 480 days of service in 24 calender months, without noticing that the said notice has been given 7 years after the pendency of the dispute. The relevancy of the documents were also not proved by the Workmen before the Labour Court. Exhibits P1 and P2 orders do not relate to the petitioners. Exhibit P1 order is in respect of the demands concerning the NMRs claim. Exhibit order P2 refers to the order of the authority under the Permanent Status Act with regard to some other Workmen. Therefore, reliance on the above two orders of the Labour Court is perverse.

6. There was no need to engage contract labourers and the standing o