The court affirmed that workmen were directly employed by management, ruling non-employment without due process illegal, and granted compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

ORDER :

1. All these writ petitions are connected to each other and are taken up for disposal by way of this common order.

2. These matters relate to the non-employment of workmen. The management of V.G.P.Golden Beach Resorts Limited has taken a plea that all these workmen are employed only through the contractor. The said contractor is also arrayed by the workmen as a second respondent in the respective industrial disputes.

3. In W.P.No. 7904 of 2006, the awards of the Labour Court in I.D.Nos. 51 to 54 of 2000 are being challenged. In this case, the workmen involved are P.Mahendran, M.Vellaichamy, J.Suryamurthy, P.Sakthivel. In W.P.No. 36539 of 2006, the award of the Labour Court in I.D.No. 380 of1999 is being challenged. In this case, a workman, K.Ganapathy is involved. In W.P.No. 36540 of 2006, the award of the Labour Court in I.D.No.872 of 1999 is being challenged. In this case, a workwoman N.Lathiba is involved. In W.P.No. 21067 of 2007, the awards of the Labour Court in I.D.Nos. 395 of 1999 to 400 of 1999 are being questioned. In this case, the workmen involved are R.Roseleen, Senthurkani, J. Pushpa Leela, A.Amutharani, M.Krishnaveni and Sivaji Lalitha. In W.P.No. 21281 of 2007, the awards of the Labour Court in I.D.No. 343 of 1999 to 346 of 1999 are being challenged. In this case, the workmen involved are R.Mukkammal, S.Murugaiyan, S.Suresh and A.Allwin.

4. Heard Mr.P.Raghunathan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner management and Mr.K.M.Ramesh, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent workmen.

5. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for the management is that these workmen were all engaged through a contractor. Without any adequate evidence, the Labour Court held that they were directly employed by the management, namely V.G.P. Golden Beach Resorts Limited. This finding is erroneous in law. It is based solely on the order passed by the Provident Fund Authority, which can be passed even as against the principal employer under the provisions of the Act. He would further submit that, in view of the changed circumstances, reinstatement is not warranted. The contention is that in some of the cases, the workmen have not even discharged the initial burden of proving their case by stepping into the box.

6. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

7. The self same arguments have been made in detail in similar cases and this Court has already considered the case of the workman and the management in detail and has decided the issue as follows:-

“17. The first question to be decided is that whether or not the workmen are directly under the employment of the petitioner management. The workmen have pleaded that they are directly under the management. They have examined W.W.1 to W.W.3 claiming that they were directly under the management and that the wages were paid by them. They have also produced Ex.W12 etc., in their favour. When it is the specific case of the management that they are only contract labourers, the person making an assertion has the initial burden to prove the same. Except for producing the invoices, no other evidence is there on record. The invoices neither contain the names of the workmen nor contain the name of the said Francis Xavier who is said to be the contractor. Therefore, the same doesn't lead anywhere. No specific contract etc., is pleaded or produced. Even in the counter affidavit, the name of the contractor etc., is not categorically pleaded. Further, it can be seen that in Ex.W.12, it is not the case that the Provident Fund Authorities that the management is liable as a principal employer. When Provident Fund Authorities claimed dues in respect of the very workmen who are before this Court and also other workmen, in all totalling 96 person