The Management vs The Presiding Officer
2023 Latest Caselaw 7595 Mad

                                                                           W.A.Nos.1008, 1009, 1010,
                                                                              1011 and 1012 of 2010

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED: 05.07.2023

                                                     CORAM

                                    THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
                                                       AND
                                  THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN

                                            W.A.Nos.1008 to 1012 of 2010

                     W.A.No.1008 of 2010 :

                     The Management,
                     The National Small Industrial
                     Corporation Ltd.,
                     No.29 & 30, SIDCO Industrial Estate,
                     Dindigul – 624 006.                                           ... Appellant

                                                         Vs.
                     1.The Presiding Officer,
                       Labour Court,
                       Tiruchirapalli.

                     2.P.Balasundari
                     3.M.Selvam
                     4.A.Ponnusami
                     5.R.Arunai Princy
                     6.Jayaprakasi
                       W/o. P.Suresh Kumar (Died)
                     7.Minor S.Karthik Raja
                       S/o.P.Suresh Kumar                                       ... Respondents

[Minor 7th respondent rep. By his next friend and natural guardian]

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1008, 1009, 1010, 1011 and 1012 of 2010

Prayer : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, against the order dated 25.02.2010 in W.P.No.21044 of 2000 passed by this Court.

                                  For Appellant      : Mr.S.Subbiah, Senior Counsel
                                                       for Mr.Ajoy Kumar Gnanam
                                  For R1             : Court
                                  For R2 to R7       : No appearance


                     W.A.No.1009 of 2010 :

                     The Management,
                     The National Small Industrial
                     Corporation Ltd.,

No.29 & 30, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Dindigul – 624 006. ... Appellant Vs.

1.R.Arunai Princy

2.Jayaprakasi

3.Minor S.Karthik Raja (Minor 3rd respondent rep. By his next friend and natural guardian his mother the 2nd respondent herein)

4.The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli. ... Respondents

Prayer : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, against the order dated 25.02.2010 in W.P.No.7776 of 2000 passed by this Court.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1008, 1009, 1010, 1011 and 1012 of 2010

For Appellant : Mr.S.Subbiah, Senior Counsel for Mr.Ajoy Kumar Gnanam For R1 to R3 : No appearance For R4 : Court

W.A.No.1010 of 2010 :

The Management, The National Small Industrial Corporation Ltd., No.29 & 30, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Dindigul – 624 006. ... Appellant Vs.

1.M.Selvam

2.The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli. ... Respondents

Prayer : Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, against the order dated 25.02.2010 in W.P.No.7815 of 2000 passed by this Court.

                                  For Appellant      : Mr.S.Subbiah, Senior Counsel
                                                       for Mr.Ajoy Kumar Gnanam
                                  For R1             : No appearance
                                  For R2             : Court

                     W.A.No.1011 of 2010 :
                     The Management,
                     The National Small Industrial
                     Corporation Ltd.,

No.29 & 30, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Dindigul – 624 006. ... Appellant

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1008, 1009, 1010, 1011 and 1012 of 2010

Vs.

1.P.Balasundari

2.The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli. ... Respondents

Prayer : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, against the order dated 25.02.2010 in W.P.No.7973 of 2000 passed by this Court.

                                  For Appellant        : Mr.S.Subbiah, Senior Counsel
                                                         for Mr.Ajoy Kumar Gnanam

                                  For R1               : No appearance
                                  For R2               : Court

                     W.A.No.1012 of 2010 :

                     The Management,
                     The National Small Industrial
                     Corporation Ltd.,

No.29 & 30, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Dindigul – 624 006. ... Appellant Vs.

1.A.Ponnuchamy

2.The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli. ... Respondents

Prayer : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, against the order dated 25.02.2010 in W.P.No.7974 of 2000 passed by this Court.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1008, 1009, 1010, 1011 and 1012 of 2010

For Appellant : Mr.S.Subbiah, Senior Counsel for Mr.Ajoy Kumar Gnanam For R1 : No appearance For R2 : Court

COMMON JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)

These writ appeals have been directed against the orders passed by

the Writ Court dated 25.02.2010 made in W.P.No.21044 of 2000 along

with connected writ petitions by way of common order.

2. The respondents were the contract employees worked with the

appellant Management. At one point of time, they have been disengaged,

therefore they raised industrial dispute and those industrial dispute raised

by them have been taken up by the Labour Court concerned as Industrial

Disputes in I.D.Nos.290, 303, 304 and 305 of 1995 on the file of the

Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli. Ultimately award was passed by the

Labour Court on 09.08.1999, under which, the Labour Court directed the

Management to reinstate the employees. However, the employees were

not eligible for getting any backwages.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1008, 1009, 1010, 1011 and 1012 of 2010

3. Aggrieved over the said award passed by the Labour Court for

denial of backwages, the employees filed writ petitions in W.P.

Nos.7776, 7815, 7973, 7974 of 2000 and the Management filed

W.P.No.21044 of 2000 challenging the award passed by the Labour

Court in giving direction to the Management to reinstate the employees.

4. That is how all those writ petitions were taken up for hearing

jointly and a common order was passed by the Writ Court on 25.02.2010,

under which, the learned Judge has agreed with the factual finding with

the Labour Court that the contract between a private contractor and the

appellant Company is sham and nominal. Therefore, based on which, it

cannot be stated that they are only contract labourers and not the direct

employees or labourers of the appellant Company.

5. As a result of which, the learned Judge also found that, of

course by taking into account the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in International Airport Authority of India Vs. International Air Cargo

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1008, 1009, 1010, 1011 and 1012 of 2010

Workers' Union and another reported in 2009 LLR 923, the employees

were entitled for reinstatement.

6. Since the industry itself was closed after sometime i.e., after 7

years from the date of the disengagement or termination of their services,

the learned Judge also held that, if at all the employees had been

continuously working, they would have worked for 7 years, thereafter

definitely they have to send out because of the closure of the Company.

Therefore, for the purpose of the continuous working, already 17-B

wages had been drawn by them as per the direction of this Court and also

the last drawn salary had been paid during the period they were out of

service after the Labour Court award. Therefore, taking all these aspects

into consideration the learned Judge has come to the conclusion that, the

employees would be entitled to get the compensation.

7. Accordingly, the learned Judge has calculated the compensation

as Rs.25,000/- for each of the employee which should be paid within a

time frame.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1008, 1009, 1010, 1011 and 1012 of 2010

8. As against the said order passed by the learned Single Judge,

employees have not filed any appeal, therefore they accepted the said

order, whereas the appellant company preferred these intra-Court

appeals.

9. Assailing the said order of the learned Judge, Mr.S.Subbiah,

learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant Company would

submit that, insofar as the finding given by the Labour Court that, the

contract between the contractor and the appellant Company is a sham

and nominal is concerned, that finding could not have been made as

there has been no factual matrix and factual background is available

before the Labour Court even and therefore that aspect has not been

considered by the learned Judge in proper perspective.

10. The learned Senior Counsel at one point of time has stated

before this Court that, even the appellant Company would be ready to

make the payment of Rs.25,000/- as a compensation to these workers as

directed by the learned Single Judge, however, insofar as the finding that

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1008, 1009, 1010, 1011 and 1012 of 2010

he has given that the contract is only a sham and nominal is concerned,

that will have some repercussion and therefore that should be erased or

eschewed, he contended.

11. We have considered the said submissions made by the learned

Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant and have perused the

materials placed before this Court.

12. On factual aspect the Labour Court has found that, even

though there has been a contract between the contractor and the

appellant Company that was found to be a sham and nominal contract, in

other words, that is, in the words of the Labour Court, though there was a

contract under whom the employees were engaged by the appellant

Company, the entire control of these employees was in the hands of the

Management of the appellant Company.

13. Based on such factual finding given by the Labour Court alone

the learned Judge in the order impugned has given his finding that the

said contract is only a sham and nominal.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1008, 1009, 1010, 1011 and 1012 of 2010

14. Since such a finding is a very basis for arriving at a conclusion

as to what relief the employees are entitled to and based on which it has

been held that, the employees are entitled to get the reinstatement and the

reinstatement could not be made possible because the Company itself has

been closed after 7 years, then only the learned Judge thought of giving

the compensation that is how Rs.25,000/- compensation has been

ordered. Therefore, what the conclusion reached by the learned Judge in

passing such an order is justified only on the basis of the finding given in

respect of the alleged contract between the contractor and the appellant

Company as sham and nominal and therefore, such an important finding

cannot be easily eschewed as sought for by the learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the appellant company.

15. In that view of the matter, we do not find any error in the order

passed by the learned Judge, hence it does not require any interference

from us, accordingly, these Writ Appeals fail, hence they are dismissed.

If the said amount has not already been paid, the same shall be paid to

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1008, 1009, 1010, 1011 and 1012 of 2010

each of the respondent employees with 6% interest from the date of due

till the date of payment within a period of six weeks from the date of

receipt of a copy of this judgment. No costs.

                                                                     (R.S.K. J.) (V.L.N. J.)
                                                                           05.07.2023
                     Index           : Yes/No

                     Speaking Order : Yes/No

                     Sgl

                     To

                     The Presiding Officer,
                     Labour Court,
                     Tiruchirapalli.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1008, 1009, 1010, 1011 and 1012 of 2010

R. SURESH KUMAR, J.

And V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

Sgl

W.A.Nos.1008, 1009, 1010, 1011 and 1012 of 2010

05.07.2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis