The court confirmed the employer-employee relationship and ruled that the non-employment of workmen was unjustified, ordering compensation instead of reinstatement.

ORDER :

(D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.)

A. The Petitions:

These two Writ Petitions were filed 23 years ago. They challenge the same award of the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai, dated 22.06.2001 made in I.D.No.66 of 1990. By the said award, the Tribunal answered the reference partly in favour of the workmen holding that they are entitled for reinstatement into service.

1.1. Aggrieved by the same, the Management, namely, Tamil Nadu Minerals Limited, a public sector undertaking fully owned and sponsored by the Government of Tamil Nadu, has preferred W.P.No.22028 of 2002. Since the award did not grant back wages and also did not specifically mention continuity of service and other benefits, one of the two Trade Unions that had filed Claim Petitions, namely, Mettur General Workers Union, had filed W.P.No.7814 of 2003 claiming back wages, continuity of service and other benefits to the 106 workmen it has been representing. As such, the Writ Petitions are disposed of by this common order.

B. The facts in brief:

2. The factual matrix, in which this labour conflict arises is that the Management was involved in quarrying minerals, specifically granites and at the relevant point in time, had more than 40 quarries in operation throughout the State of Tamil Nadu. The present dispute relates to four quarries: Yellikaradu, Salem District; Karungal Anai, Salem District; Paithur, Salem District; and Bevanur, Dharmapuri District. The activity involved is mining by blasting, etc., and the extracted stones must be cut, sized, and categorised according to their quality.

2.1. It is the case of the workmen that they worked as Chiselmen and Assistants in the said activity continuously for more than 10 years. A settlement was also arrived at on 07.11.1989 under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter 'the I.D Act’). Since the settlement was not implemented, the workmen resorted to strike from 16.11.1989 onwards. During conciliation proceedings, the Assistant Labour Commissioner advised the workmen to give up the strike and join duty. Accordingly, when the workmen went to resume duty on 18.12.1989, the management refused to permit them to join duty. Hence, they raised the present dispute.

2.2. Conciliation did not result in a resolution. Thereafter, the matter was referred for adjudication by the Government of India vide order No.L-29011/16/90, dated 03.08.1990, as follows:-

"Whether the action of the management of M/s.Tamil Nadu Minerals Ltd., Madras in disengaging the chiselmen is justified. If not, to what relief are the workmen entitled?"

2.3. Before the Tribunal, on 13.11.1990, Dharmapuri Mavatta Kanima Desiaya Thozilalar Sangam (INTUC) filed a claim statement. It filed the claim statement with reference to the workmen who are its members, who are mentioned in the Annexure to the claim statement. Apart from mentioning the settlement and non-employment, it is pleaded that the workmen were employed on a piece rate basis under the direct control and supervision of the management. They were paid bonuses and exgratia in the previous years as applicable to the permanent workers of the management. They were also provided various things such as shoes, helmets, goggles, respirators and facilities such as identity cards, medical facilities, statutory compensation, incentive payments etc. An attendance register was also maintained. They are covered by the Standing Orders and prayed for reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages, regularizing the services and implementing the settlement, dated 07.11.1989.

2.4. Thereafter, on 02.02.1991, the Mettur General Workers Union filed a claim statement. Apart from the above details, the details as to the nature of work done by the workmen were given. It is stated that they are filing the claim on behalf of their members 79 workmen from Yellikaradu quarry and 40 workmen from Karungal Anai quarry. The details of conciliation proceedings are also given. It is stated that on 18.12.1989, 20.12.1989 an