Court upheld the labour court's decision, recognizing the workmen as employees despite the employer's claims of a contract system, while denying back wages due to the workmen's delay in pursuing claims.

JUDGMENT :

A.D. Maria Clete, J.

Heard.

2.In the first writ petition, the Petitioner, the Superintending Engineer of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Kadamparai Electricity Generation Circle (hereinafter referred to as the "Electricity Board"), challenges a common award issued by the First Additional Labour Court, Coimbatore, on 05.04.2018. The award pertains to 11 industrial disputes raised by 11 respondents (hereinafter referred to as the "workmen"), each of whom had individually approached the labour court. By the impugned award, the labour court set aside the oral terminations of the 11 workmen and directed their reinstatement within one month from the date the award takes effect. However, the labour court declined to grant continuity of service, back wages, or attendant benefits.

3. Aggrieved by the common award, the Electricity Board filed a single writ petition. When the matter was taken up on 08.09.2020, notice was ordered in the writ petition, and private notice was also permitted. In the meantime, upon receiving notice of the writ petition filed by the Electricity Board, the 11 workmen, who were also aggrieved by the same common award dated 05.04.2018, filed a second writ petition challenging the portion of the award that denied them continuity of service, back wages, and other attendant benefits.

4. In the second writ petition, when the matter was taken up on 19.07.2021, it was admitted, and notice was ordered to the respondent Electricity Board. It was further directed that the said writ petition be heard along with the first writ petition filed by the Electricity Board. However, when the matter was subsequently listed on 05.11.2024, it was referred for adjudication before the Lok Adalat scheduled for 14.12.2024. As no settlement was reached in the Lok Adalat, and when the first writ petition filed by the Electricity Board was taken up for final disposal, the second writ petition filed by the workmen was also tagged along. Consequently, a common judgment has been pronounced in both matters.

5. The records reveal that the 11 workmen raised disputes before the Government Labour Officer, Coimbatore, challenging their oral termination on different dates as follows: I.D.No.234/2006 (T. Babu) – 20.07.1998 I.D.No.235/2006 (T. Ravichandran) – 30.10.1998, I.D.No.236/2006 (T. Rajaselvan) – 31.12.1997, I.D.No.237/2006 (P. Suresh) – 30.10.1998, I.D.No.240/2006 (S. Ramesh) – 30.04.1999, I.D.No.243/2006 (K. Parvathi) – 05.03.1998, I.D.No.248/2006 (K. Arumugam) – 31.07.1996, I.D.No.249/2006 (K. Selvaraj) – 31.03.1998, I.D.No.250/2006 (K. Mylsami) – 23.08.1998, I.D.No.254/2006 (K. Manikandan) – 31.12.1997, I.D.No.256/2006 (P. Lawrence D’Cruz) – 16.12.1999.

6. The Labour Officer, after issuing due notice to the Electricity Board, submitted failure reports on various dates, including 03.03.2006, 27.07.2006, 27.03.2006, 24.03.2006, and 09.11.2006. Based on these failure reports, the 11 workmen filed their respective claim statements dated 08.09.2006 before the Labour Court, Coimbatore. The Labour Court registered the disputes as I.D.Nos. 234 to 237 of 2006, 240 of 2006, 243 of 2006, 248 to 250 of 2006, and 254 of 2006, 256 of 2006. The Electricity Board entered an appearance and filed separate but identical counter statements dated 07.06.2017 in the first 1