The main legal point established in the judgment is that the reasoning arrived at by the Industrial Tribunal in reversing the Award did not suffer from any perversity to be interfered with, and the settlement dated 15.12.1997 was binding on the parties, as it had not been terminated in the manner known to law.

JUDGMENT :

K.Kumaresh Babu, J.

Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act, against the common order of this Court dated 26.04.2012 in W.P.Nos.4368 of 2009, 26724 of 2010 and 6371 of 2011 in so far as W.P.No.6371 of 2011 is concerned and allow the Writ Appeal.

Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act, against the common order of this Court dated 26.04.2012 in W.P.Nos.4368 of 2009, 26724 of 2010 and 6371 of 2011 in so far as W.P.No.26724 of 2010 is concerned and allow the Writ Appeal.

Writ Appeals have been preferred by the General Secretary, Madras Refineries Workers Union being aggrieved against the common order dated 26.04.2012 made in W.P.Nos.4368 of 2009, 26724 of 2010 and 6371 of 2011, wherein the learned Single Judge has set aside the award made in I.D.No.128/2001 dated 30.03.2010 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai.

2. The issue involved in the appeals is as to whether the Members of the appellant Union have to be absorbed as permanent workers. The case of the appellant in W.A.No.1071/2012 is that the first respondent had entered into a Contract Labour Agreement with the third respondent Society. The said third respondent Society is the creation of the first respondent, with an object to deprive the rights of the workers for better service benefits. The appellant by their letter dated 30.06.1998 had issued a strike notice over a charter of demands, including their demand for regularization of the third respondent employees in the first respondent company. The same was referred for conciliation which failed and hence, the industrial dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication by the Central Government, Ministry of Labour vide Order dated 28.05.1999. The reference for adjudication is as follows:

“Whether the demand of Madras Refineries Workers Union for absorption of workmen listed in Annexure-A as regular employees of Madras Refineries Limited is justified? If so, to what relief the workmen is entitled?”

The same was numbered as I.D.No.128/2001 and based on the statement of claim and counter, the following points for consideration were framed by the Tribunal:

“(1) Whether the demand of the petitioner Union for absorption of workmen listed in Annexure A as regular employees of Madras Refineries Ltd. now known as Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited is justified?

(2) To what relief the concerned workmen is entitled to?”

3. The Tribunal after consideration of various documents and evidences on both sides, by its Award dated 30.08.2010 had held that the members of the petitioner Union are entitled to be absorbed into the service of the first respondent with retrospective effect from the date of their initial entry into service of the Society/third respondent with all resultant back-wages and attendant benefits. The said Award was challenged by the first respondent and by Order dated 26.04.2012, the said Award was set aside by the learned Judge, which is being assailed by the appellant in the present appeals.

4. Heard Mr.V.Prakash, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant/Union, Mr.S.Jayaraman, learned counsel for the respondent/Management and Mr.S.Shivathanu Mohan, learned counsel for the respondent/Society and perused the materials available on record.

5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would at the outset submit that the contract labour agreement between the first and the third respondent is sham and nominal. The members of the appellant union who were employed in the first respondent company through the third respondent society were carrying on permanent and perennial work. To support his contention, he submitted that the third respondent society was created in the year 1983 by the first respondent. Key posts of the society were held by the managerial personnel of the first respondent and the first respondent had control over the functioning of the third respondent society. It is the first res