An unregistered trade union can represent workers collectively, and the status of employment should be determined by actual working conditions, not merely contractual labels, establishing permanent employee rights despite the use of contractors.

ORDER :

A. The Writ Petition:

1. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Pondicherry , dated 08.04.2009 made in I.D.No.15 of 2005. By the said award, the Labour Court directed the grant of permanent status to the Workmen and that their services be regularised and be granted, but wages on par with the regular workers of the Management, in the fitting category.

B. Case of the Workmen:

2. The case of the Workmen is that 165 Workmen are concerned in the present dispute. They are employed by the Management in the factory for about 2½ years. All of them are technically qualified being ITI, Diploma holders in various trades. They were employed in the activities of the Management, such as mixing up of raw materials, grinding of ball mill, spray drying, style pressing, glazing line, tiles car loading, kiln firing, polishing, squaring, sorting and packing, carton plant, machine maintenance, turning works, diesel generators maintenance, fitter and operation, kiln maintenance. They were employed in the same manner as that of the other Workmen employed by the Management permanently. All of them have completed 240 days without any break in service. The list of members was given as an annexure to the claim statement. Their qualification, nature of job and dates of initial engagement were also furnished. When the Workmen for regularisation and other demands formed the present Union and they raised some demands on 15.03.2005.

2.1. On 17.03.2005, the Labour Officer called for remarks from the Management. The Management terminated the services of the office bearers attached to the Union. A letter sent by the Labour Officer to the alleged contractors returned with an endorsement of 'no such addressee'. The so-called contractors also did not appear before the conciliation officer. On 05.04.2005, the Management filed a reply before the conciliation officer that they had not prevented anybody from attending work. The petitioner-union had filed a detailed rejoinder to the said statement and sought for settlement of the dispute. Even during the conciliation on 24.05.2005, the Management stated that they were ready to take back the workers and also assured that the demands would be looked into. However, pending the conciliation, the Management filed W.P.No.14939 of 2005 seeking police protection, where this Court disposed of the Writ Petition holding that the Workmen can hold only peaceful demonstrations. The Management also filed O.S.No.69 of 2005 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Karaikal , seeking the relief of injunction against the 14 members of the petitioner-Union. Thereafter, when the conciliation officer submitted a failure report, the Government referred the dispute for adjudication vide order dated 10.11.2005 and the reference was on the following terms:-

“A) Whether the claim of Murudeshwar Ceramics Tiles Contract Workers' Union that the Labour Contract of M/s Shivashakthi Associates and M/s Ramashri Associates in the establishment of M/s Murudeshwar Ceramics Limited, Thirunallar, Karaikal is sham is correct ?. If so, to give appropriate directions ?

B) If yes, whether the charter of demands viz., fixation of wages on par with management of H& R Johnson Tiles, Karaikal and regularisation of all workers, payment of conveyance allowance etc., raised by the Union is justified ? If so, to give appropriate directions ?”

2.2. The members of the petitioner – Union are entitled to the various benefits claimed in the charter of demands tha