COMMON ORDER

These Writ Petitions have been filed for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to quash the order, dated 30.07.2013 in C.P.No.80 of 2011 passed by the 1st respondent/The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madurai.

2. The brief facts as stated in the affidavit filed M/s.Sundram Fasteners Limited in W.P.(MD) No.964 of 2014 is that the petitioner company was registered under the Indian Companies Act and engaged in manufacturer of fasteners, mainly for Automobiles. The petitioner had engaged contractors, who in turn engaged their workmen. The workmen were employed only by the contractors and the workmen are not employed by the petitioner. There is no relationship of employer and workmen subsisted between them. The second respondent is one of such contractors and he had engaged the 3rd respondent as workmen only from the year 1999. This being a case, the 3rd respondent falsely claimed that he was employed by the petitioner and he has invoked the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, and filed P.G.Case No.52 of 2008 before the Controlling authority, under the Payment of Gratuity Act, by impleading the petitioner's company as a party along with the 2nd respondent. After affording an opportunities to the parties, the Controlling authority, under the Payment of Gratuity Act, has held that the 3rd respondent never employed at any point of time directly by the petitioner establishment and further held that the 2nd respondent is liable for payment of gratuity, as per the Provisions of the Act, for the period from 1999 to 2005. The 3rd respondent has not challenged the said order, dated 28.04.2001, which has categorically held that the 3rd respondent was not a workman of the petitioner establishment, which was attained finality. Despite the same, the 3rd respondent by invoking Section 33(C) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, filed a case in C.P.No.80 of 2011 before the Labour Court, Madurai, against the petitioner establishment as well as the 2nd respondent for payment, totally a sum of Rs.4,51,388/-, by way of bonus, encashment of leave, salary for festival holidays as well as over time salary. In the claim petition, the 3rd respondent has stated that, he had worked for the period from 1982 to 1998 under the petitioner establishment and for the period from 1999 to 2005, under the 2nd respondent establishment.

3. The contention of the petitioner's company is that the Labour Court, despite the findings of the Controlling authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, wherein, it has held that the 3rd respondent never worked under the petitioner establishment and erroneously held that the workmen worked under the petitioner establishment and accordingly, held that the petitioner establishment is liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,09,858/-by way of bonus, encashment of leave salary as well as the salary for National and Festival Holidays. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner establishment has filed this instant writ petition.

4. The facts narrated in Writ Petition in W.P.(MD) No.2698 of 2014 filed by Sakthi Management Services (herein after called Sakthi Management) has stated that the Controlling authority, under the Payment of Gratuity Act, has held that the workmen is not a workman under M/s.Sundarama Fastners Limited and passed an order for payment of gratuity against the Sakthi management only. The Sakthi management admitted that, during the period from 1999 to 2005 the workman worked under the Sakthi Management. The contention of the Sakthi Management is that, even though there are number of workmen worked from the year 1999 to 2005, it cannot be said that they were continuously working so as to entitle for encashment of leave, bonus as well as salary for National and Festival holidays. There is no provision under the enactment applicable to the establishment that the leave can be encashed. As far as the workmen is concerned, no bonus was declared. The workman has not established that, he was entitled to encashment of leave, bonus and sal