The court upheld the tribunal's finding that workmen failed to prove direct employment, thus validating the contract labor arrangement.

ORDER :

1. This Writ Petition challenges the impugned award, dated 26.12.2022, made in I.D. No. 31 of 2006. The Award was in answer to the reference made via G.O.(D) No.738, dated 30.10.2006, made by the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai, ruling against the workmen and stating that the claims are not justified.

2. The brief factual background, in which the Writ Petition arises, is that vide G.O.(D).No.738, dated 30.10.2006, two issues were referred for adjudication by the Tribunal. The first question was whether all the workmen, without any discrimination, are entitled to a wage hike and, if so, the requisite orders should be passed. The second question was whether the action of the management, in terming the regular workmen working under the management as contract labourers, is justified or not, and if it is not justified, then, appropriate orders should be passed. The said reference was taken on file as I.D.No.31 of 2006.

3. On behalf of the workmen, Tamil Nadu Jananayaga Pothu Thozhilalar Sangam, the trade union, filed a Claim Petition. It claims that 123 workmen are involved in the dispute. They were working in the core functions of the factory. Their tasks included shaving, setting, buffing, staking, piniplus, polishing, boiler operation, drum handling, store and chemical distributions, padding, assorting, gardening, ETP, electrical maintenance, welding, and so on. It is their specific case that these workers have been in service since 1991, 2001, and 2002 until they were sent out of their jobs. They were not considered employees of any contractor. In the meantime, the management created records to falsely show that these workmen were working under contractors. This was a sham and nominal arrangement, only on paper, made in 2003. Before that, one Chandra Enterprises was also brought in as the employer. Later, in 2005, two contractors were introduced: Sri Kishore Labour Contractors and K.V. Enterprises.

4. On 01.08.2005, James Ponnarasu, who was in charge of protection, threatened severe actions against the workers and ill-treated them, causing them to leave the company that day. On 03.08.2005, the union sent a representation requesting that the said workers be reinstated by the management. The management rejected the union's request. On 16.08.2004, the union raised four demands before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, of which two were dropped. The remaining two demands were persisted. On 04.03.2006, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour submitted a failure report. Therefore, on behalf of the workers, it was requested that an award be issued declaring that the demands raised by the union are justified and that the management be directed to reinstate the workers with back wages, continuity of service, and all other attendant benefits.

5. The Claim Statement was opposed by the management by filing a counter. It was stated that the factory was started in 1999 after being purchased from James Ponnarasu. The previous workmen were all settled by him, and documentary evidence of this was submitted before the conciliation officer. The management employed workmen through contractors for daily operations. Two registered contractors, Sri Kishore Labour Contractors, Chennai – 78, and K.V. Enterprises, Chennai – 73, supplied labour. The petitioner union's members are all contract workers under these contractors, none of whom are direct employees of the management. It is false to claim that these workers worked directly for the management since 1991. In 2005, when the contract labour involved misconduct- disrespect towards senior management, physical violence against officials and loyal workers, and an unlawful strike on 17.06