The Labour Court exceeded its jurisdiction by regularizing contract workers without sufficient evidence, emphasizing the need for proper proof of employer-employee relationships under the Industrial Disputes Act.

JUDGMENT :

Heard.

2. In W.P. No. 4804 of 2020, the School Management challenges the Award dated 10.07.2019 passed by the I Additional Labour Court in I.D. No. 254 of 2017. By the impugned Award, the Labour Court has directed as follows:—

“This court holds that the claim of the petitioner’s union to regularize the employment of all employees from the category of contract workers to the regular workers from the date of their employment with the scale of pay, pay arrears, leave salary and all other benefits claimed by the petitioner union is lawful, and justified. The respondents 1st and 2nd are directed to extend the said benefits within one month from the date of this order. No costs.”

3. The writ petition was admitted on 26.02.2020, and an interim stay was granted. Upon notice, the contesting first respondent entered appearance, and this Court passed the following interim order:—

“In that view of the matter, the interim order earlier granted on 26.02.2020 is extended till the next hearing on condition that the Petitioners shall deposit the entire monetary benefits due as per the impugned order from the date of termination till the date of filing of the Writ Petition in an interest fetching fixed deposit in the name of the Presiding Officer, I Additional Labour Court, Chennai in any Nationalized Bank in Chennai initially for a period of one year and renewable automatically for the same period from time to time and hand over the original Fixed Deposit receipt to the I Additional Labour Court, Chennai along with a working-sheet showing calculation of the amount deposited, under written acknowledgment and file proof of such compliance before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court by 02.11.2020 without fail.”

4. By an affidavit dated 25.02.2020, the writ petitioner informed this Court that the workmen, who continued to be in employment, had filed claim petitions before the Labour Court in C.P. Nos. 168 and 169 of 2019, seeking wages totaling Rs.6,62,09,053/- against the School Management. In the meantime, during the Covid-19 lockdown, while the School Management continued to pay wages to other teachers and employees, it failed to pay lockdown wages to the workers covered by the Award. Consequently, two applications, W.M.P. Nos. 22191 and 22192 of 2021, were filed seeking (i) to vacate the interim stay granted on 22.09.2020 and (ii) to restrain the School Management from altering the service conditions of the workers covered by I.D. No. 254 of 2017. However, no orders were passed on these applications. The first respondent Trade Union also filed a counter affidavit dated Nil of January 2021.

5. In the meantime, when the matter was taken up on 07.02.2025, this Court directed the parties to appear before the Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre attached to the High Court for an attempt at settlement. However, the Centre, by a report dated Nil, informed that no settlement was arrived at, and accordingly, the matter was posted for final disposal.

6. From the records, it is seen that the first respondent Union raised an industrial dispute under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before the Government Labour Officer, Circle III, Chennai, by letter dated 04.09.2024, seeking a declaration that the workers represented by the Union, though engaged as contract workers, should be deemed to be employees of the petitioner School and be paid time-scale wages, along with arrears, on par with Government School teachers. The School Management, in its counter, contended that the workers represented by the first respondent Union were outsourced employees engaged through two contractors, namely, the second and third respondents, who are independent legal entities, and that the School had no direct relationship with the said workers. It was further asserted that there was no system of direct employment under the guise of contract labour and that the contractors, being the employers, had covered the workers under various labour legislation