The court upheld the Labour Court's finding of unjustified non-employment of workmen due to unfair labor practices, establishing the employer-employee relationship despite claims of contract labor.

ORDER :

D.Bharatha Chakravarthy, J.

A. The Petition:

This writ petition is filed challenging the award of the Labour Court, Puducherry, dated 07/12/2009 made in I.D. No.24 of 2001, which was filed by the Management, namely, Nithya Packaging Private Limited. By the said award, the reinstatement of 25 workmen with back wages and consequential benefits was ordered.

B. The Case of the Workmen:

2. The case of the workmen is that they were in the services of the Management right from its inception in the year 1997. However, when they formed a Trade Union in November 2000, the Management refused employment to 19 workmen and refused payment of wages to 6 workmen. The Union addressed a letter on 07/12/2000 and issued a strike notice on 11/12/2000, on the premise that the action of the Management amounted to unfair labour practice. Conciliation failed and thereafter the matter was referred for adjudication by the Government of Puducherry, vide G.O. Rt. No.108/2001/AII./I dated 12/06/2003 referred the matter for adjudication on the following terms:

“1.Whether the demand of the union that the workmen mentioned hereunder should be reinstated by the management of M/s Nithya Packaging Pvt. Limited, Pondicherry is justified ? If so, to what relief they are entitled to ?

2.Whether the demand of the union that the management should revise the wages and other allowances paid to the workmen is justified ?. If so, to give appropriate directions.

3.To what other relief the union is entitled to ?

4.To compute the relief, if any, awarded in terms of money if it can be so computed.”

3. The workmen thereafter filed a claim petition. While repeating the above facts, it is the further case of the workmen that when they issued strike notice, the Management filed a civil suit and obtained an interim injunction from conducting demonstration, gheraoing etc., within 100 meters of the entrance of the unit. A case in Cr. No. 56 of 2001 was also registered against 11 workmen. The injunction was subsequently vacated. Even then the Management refused employment and in turn started employing contract labourers. It was paying only Rs. 15/- to Rs. 30/- as salary. The action amounts to unfair labour practice. It was therefore prayed that the workmen should be reinstated with back wages and the wages should be revised.

C. The Case of the Management:

4. The claim was resisted by the Management by filing a counter affidavit. It is pleaded that the Union has no locus standi. Of the 25 workmen, only 6 were the casual employees under the Management. In the conciliation itself it was informed that in respect of the other 19 workmen, the Management has no personal knowledge about them and the matter of non-employment has to be settled only through the respective contractors. Of the 6 workmen, 5 were not willing to work on the wages paid by the Management and remained absent from 01/12/2000 and thus their names are struck off from the muster rolls. The sixth employee - Mahendran was found preventing the other workers in support of these five workmen and therefore, he was suspended on 12/01/2001. He did not give any reply nor attended the domestic enquiry. No unfair labour practice was committed by the Management. Only the workmen indulged in an illegal strike when the conciliation was pending. The activity of the Management was producing boxes which can be manufactured in cottage industries. The wages are paid on par with the industry norms. Therefore, the fixation of wages was not necessitated.

D. Enquiry & Findings of the Labour Court:

5. The Labour Court proceeded with the enquiry. No oral evidence was let in on both sides. On behalf of the workmen, Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. On behalf of the Management Exs. B1 to B5 were marked. The Labour Court considered the case of the parties. The labour court considered the plea of the Management that 19 workmen were only contract labour. It considered Ex.B3 and B4 which were attendance registers from August 2000 onwards and found that the Managemen