The definition of employer extends beyond contractual relationships, focusing on economic control over workers' livelihoods, establishing liability for compensation in interconnected businesses.

JUDGMENT :

A.D. MARIA CLETE, J.

Heard.

2. The present three writ petitions have been filed by the Petitioner Management challenging three separate awards passed by the First Additional Labour Court, Chennai, in I.D. Nos. 52/2018, 53/2018, and 54/2018, dated 09.12.2019. By these awards, the Labour Court directed the Petitioner Management, impleaded as the 2nd respondent in all the industrial disputes, to pay compensation as follows: Rs. 1,20,000/- to K. Ravi, the 1st respondent in W.P. No. 7945 of 2020; Rs. 30,000/- to G. Murthy, the 1st respondent in W.P. No. 7948 of 2020; and Rs. 30,000/- to D. Ramamoorthy, the 1st respondent in W.P. No. 7949 of 2020. The awards further stipulated that if the compensation amounts were not paid within 30 days, they would carry an interest of 8% per annum.

3. All three writ petitions were admitted on 15.06.2020. Pending adjudication, this Court, by orders passed in the respective W.M.Ps., directed the Petitioner Management to deposit the following amounts with the Labour Court to the credit of each industrial dispute: Rs. 50,000/- in I.D. No. 52/2018, Rs. 20,000/- in I.D. No. 53/2018, and Rs. 20,000/- in I.D. No. 54/2018. The Petitioners filed a compliance memo dated 11.07.2020, confirming that the specified amounts had been deposited with the Labour Court, enclosing photocopies of the cheques as proof. While all the workmen, upon service of notice, entered an appearance through their respective counsel, the 2nd respondent, despite being duly served, chose not to be represented.

4. The case of K. Ravi, the 1st respondent in W.P. No. 7945 of 2020, is that he was initially appointed as a casual labourer by the 2nd respondent on 01.01.1997, and his services were confirmed on 01.01.1998. He was engaged in knitting fishnets and manufacturing fishing nets and had worked for a period of 20 years. However, on 31.07.2016, he was denied entry at the workplace gate, where he found all other employees of the company also waiting outside a locked gate.

5. Subsequently, he continued to visit the company for several months but discovered that the 2nd respondent was carrying on the business behind closed doors with a different set of employees, offering lower wages and without providing any service benefits. Consequently, he issued a legal notice on 25.01.2017, but it was returned undelivered. A second legal notice was sent to the proprietor of the 2nd respondent at his residential address on 06.02.2017, which was duly received, but no response was given. His last drawn salary was Rs. 12,000/-.

6. Subsequently, he raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Officer III, Chennai. As the conciliation efforts failed, a failure report dated 03.08.2017 was issued to him. Relying on this report, he filed a claim statement before the First Additional Labour Court, which was registered as I.D. No. 52/2018 against the 2nd respondent. Thereafter, he filed I.A.No. 103/2018, seeking to implead the writ petitioner management as the 2nd respondent in the dispute. In support of this application, he filed an affidavit wherein, paragraphs 3 and 4, he made the following averments:

“I state that, I have filed the above said I.D.No.52 of 2018 without implead the M/s. Panchanathan Fish net and its Managing Directors P.Ramesh, as necessary parties in I.D.no.52 of 2018. Further I state that, the Respondent Company M/S.Ashwan Fishnet and M/s.Panchanathan Fishnet are Family concern and the both company’s registered address are same and they have common work shop. I had working that work shop as Permanent Labour. The respondent company and M/s. Panchanathan Fishnet were started by one Mr.Panchanathan, who is Father of Both Company’s managing Directors. The respondent company and M/s.Panchanathan Fishnet are same concern.

I state that, after create of M/s.Ashwan Fishnet, I and other labour were working with common at in the common workshop. Thereafter I and other labours were continue to work for M/s.Ashwan Fishnet as employee and the respond