AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.Chandru, J.—Heard Mr. N.D. Bahety, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Sanjay Mohan representing for M/s.
Ramasubramaniam Associates for the 2nd Respondent.
The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition seeking to challenge an award passed by the 1st Respondent Labour Court in I.D. No. 876 of
1993 dated 3.3.2004. The Petitioner''s Industrial Dispute was tried along with other Industrial Disputes by the other workmen being I.D. Nos. 867
to 871, 874, 876, 880 and 883 of 1993. The Labour Court conducted joint trial of all I. Ds and finally by the impugned award dated 3.3.2004,
the disputes were dismissed and by declining to grant any relief to the workmen, who were riggers, the Petitioner has come forward to file the
present Writ Petition.
The Writ Petition was admitted on 17.4.2009.When the matter came up on 18.7.2011, this Court directed the Registry to call for the records
relating to the 3 Industrial Dispute, as the Petitioner had not filed the material documents placed before the learned Court. Accordingly, the
Registry has called for records and circulated it for perusal of this Court.
The case of the Petitioner as projected in the claim statement was that in the Industrial Dispute raised by the Petitioner, he had made the Tamil
Nadu Petro Products Limited, who is the 2nd Respondent herein as well as the management of M/s. Jayalakshmi Engineering Contractors
represented by J. Loganathan as party Respondents. The Petitioner''s non-employment was taken up for adjudication by the 1st Respondent
Labour Court as I.D. No. 876 of 1993. Before the Labour Court, the Petitioner did not state as to who was the real owner and he had claimed
the relief against both the employers. His claim in the petition that he had been employed with effect from 24.12.1986 as Rigger and his service
was retrenched on 27.10.1992 without assigning any reason. His last drawn wages was Rs. 1,200/-. Since in dispensing with the service the
procedure contemplated u/s 25-F was not followed, the termination was not valid. It is also stated in para 3 of the claim statement that the
management used one J. Loganathan as a cat''s paw and described himself as a 4 Contractor though he was a worker. The management also
created documents as if there was a contract agreement entered into between the management and the said Loganathan.
On notice from the Labour Court, the 2nd Respondent had filed a counter statement dated 5.6.1999 in each of the claim statement. In the
counter statement, they had stated that they are engaging several persons as Contractors and the provisions of Contract Labour (Abolition and
Regulation) Act would apply to them. The 2nd Respondent is only a principal employer and he had nothing to do with the persons like the
Petitioner. It is also stated that the management did not appoint them on the date engaged by them and that there was no master and servant
relationship between the principal employer and the management. In para 10 of the counter, it is stated that the said Loganathan was never an
employee of the company and he is the Registered Contractor used to supply labour for carrying out the work for the principal employer and the
said contract was carried on in the name and style of M/s. Jayalakshmi Engineering Contractors, which is the registered Contractor under the
provisions of the Contract Labour (Abolition and Regulation) Act.
Before the Labour Court, common evidence was let in and on the side of the workmen, the said Loganathan was examined as W.W.1 and he is
the Petitioner in I.D. No. 876 of 1993. On the side of the management, one J. Murugavel was examined as M.W.1. The workmen had filed two
documents, which were marked as Ex.W.1 and Ex.W.2. On the side of the 2nd Respondent management, 8 documents were filed and marked as
Ex.M.1 to Ex.M.8. Ex.M.2 is a letter written by the Contractor in the name and style of J. Lakshmi Engineering Contractors, claiming the bill
raised by them.
The Labour Court based upon the evidence placed before it both orally and documentary, came to the conclusion that the workmen have not
made out any case for claiming any relief against the 2nd Respondent. The Labour Court also held that the factum of their working for 240 days
was not even proved to the satisfaction of the Labour Court. Therefore, the question of their claiming any relief will not arise.
With reference to evidence of W.W.1, the Labour Court found that he was engaged as a Contractor to supply 6 labourers for contract and they
had submitted bills to the 2nd Respondent management and got payment on the scrutiny of the bills. It can also be presumed that W.W.1 had
entered into the contract with the 2nd Respondent and as per the terms of the contract, he had carried out this contractual obligation and therefore
they can never claim any relief against the principal employer. When contract subsists between the 2nd Respondent and the said Loganathan, who
is the Petitioner in I.D. No. 876 of 1993 and he also deposed as W.W.1, challenging the said award, the present Writ Petition came to be filed.
Though in the cause title, the name of the management of M/s.S.V. Engineering Works was mentioned as the 3rd Respondent, but, however an
endorsement has been made giving up the said Respondent for reasons best known to the Petitioner. Therefore, the present relief is only claimed
against the 2nd Respondent, who is the principal employer.
Mr. N.D. Bahety, learned Counsel for the Petitioner stated that though the stand of the 2nd Respondent was that there is a contract which
subsists with the principal employer, the said contract has not been produced before the Court and therefore they had rightly contended that the 7
said Loganathan was used as a cat''s paw in the hands of the management.
In order to verify the said contention, it has to be seen the evidence deposed by W.W.1 in support of the workmen. The said W.W.1 had filed
a proof affidavit dated 16.7.2003, upon which he was cross-examined by the 2nd Respondent. In his cross-examination, he had stated that he
along with 9 others had joined as a contract labourer and after signing the stamped receipt, all of them had received wages. The 2nd Respondent
did not make any direct payment and there is no proof that the workmen had worked for 6 years in the 2nd Respondent establishment. Before
joining the 2nd Respondent industry, the Petitioner worked in KCP Limited and thereafter he worked in Larsen & Tourbo and he is unable to state
whether any dispute with Larsen and Tourbo is pending before the court. He was unable to deny the suggestion that there is another dispute
pending before the Industrial Tribunal as against the builders Industry. He further stated that Ex.M.2 contains the signature and his signature alone
was obtained and he is the same Loganathan, whose signature is found in Ex.M.2.He also filed a Claim Statement as the Petitioner in 8 I.D. No.
876 of 1993 and in all other I. Ds, he is shown as the 2nd Respondent. It is also stated that his age at the time of evidence was 61 years old.
The contention raised by the Petitioner before the Labour Court was that u/s 21(4) of the Act, the responsibility to pay wages in respect of the
contract employee in case the Contractor do not pay wages is that of the principal employer and therefore the wages paid through the said
Loganathan, who was only a nominal Contractor cannot be said to be an evidence against the workmen.However, the Labour Court correctly
rejected the said submission by stating that in the present case, the issue is only relating to non-employment and not unpaid wages by the employer.
Inasmuch as the workmen having not proved in their case to the satisfaction of the Labour Court that they were real employees of the principal
employer and the contract was sham and nominal, the question of granting any relief to them will not arise. Further, even before the Labour Court,
there was no evidence or proof except Ex.M.2, which went against the interest of the workmen. To prove that they had worked 240 days with the
2nd Respondent, it is not clear why the Petitioner gave up before this Court 9 from the arrangement of the parties the said Contractor, under
whom they were actually working and also receiving payment.
Under the circumstances, it is not a fit case where any relief can be granted to the Petitioner.Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed.
No costs.