MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY W.P.(MD)Nos.10133 to 10137, 10139

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on 31.07.2025
Pronounced on 20.08.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
W.P.(MD)Nos.10133 to 10137, 10139 to 10161, 10163 to 10170, 14234 to 14246, 14248, 14249, 14252 to 14270 of 2013 & 2245 of 2014
& W.M.P.(MD)Nos.1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1 & 1 of 2013, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2,
2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2,
2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2 & 2 of 2013 W.P.No.10133 of 2013:
M.Arulprakasam
…Petitioner
vs.
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli
2.R.Sivasubramanian,
C/o.TAFE Employees Union,
No.10/220, Santhosapuram, Pandiyarajapuram Post, Dindigul District.
3.Management of Tractor & Farm Equipment Ltd.,
No.10/205, Kalladipatti,
Dindugul District 624 215
…Respondents
W.P.No.10134 of 2013:
S.Subburayalu
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli
2.M.Saravanan,
C/o.TAFE Employees Union,
No.10/220, Santhosapuram, Pandiyarajapuram Post, Dindigul District.
3.Management of Tractor & Farm Equipment Ltd.,
No.10/205, Kalladipatti,
Dindugul District 624 215
…Respondents W.P.No.10135 of 2013:
G.Ramakrishnan
…Petitioner
vs.
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli
2.T.Sundaravadivel,
C/o.TAFE Employees Union,
No.10/220, Santhosapuram, Pandiyarajapuram Post, Dindigul District.
W.P.No.10136 of 2013:
M.Arulprakasam
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli
2.T.Gopal,
C/o.TAFE Employees Union,
No.10/220, Santhosapuram, Pandiyarajapuram Post, Dindigul District.
3.Management of Tractor & Farm Equipment Ltd.,
No.10/205, Kalladipatti,
Dindugul District 624 215
…Respondents W.P.No.10137 of 2013:
M.Arulprakasam
…Petitioner
vs.
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli
2.M.Karuppusamy,
C/o.TAFE Employees Union,
No.10/220, Santhosapuram, Pandiyarajapuram Post, Dindigul District.
W.P.No.10139 of 2013:
R.Pandi
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli
2.K.Sivakumar,
C/o.TAFE Employees Union,
No.10/220, Santhosapuram, Pandiyarajapuram Post, Dindigul District.
3.Management of Tractor & Farm Equipment Ltd.,
No.10/205, Kalladipatti,
Dindugul District 624 215
…Respondents W.P.No.10140 of 2013:
A.Samalakumar
…Petitioner
vs.
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli
2.G.Mani,
C/o.TAFE Employees Union,
No.10/220, Santhosapuram, Pandiyarajapuram Post, Dindigul District.
W.P.No.10141 of 2013:
G.Ramakrishnan
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli
2.S.Sankar,
C/o.TAFE Employees Union,
No.10/220, Santhosapuram, Pandiyarajapuram Post, Dindigul District.
3.Management of Tractor & Farm Equipment Ltd.,
No.10/205, Kalladipatti,
Dindugul District 624 215
…Respondents W.P.No.10142 of 2013:
R.Pandi
…Petitioner
vs.
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli
2.S.Balaganesan,
C/o.TAFE Employees Union,
No.10/220, Santhosapuram, Pandiyarajapuram Post, Dindigul District.
W.P.No.10143 of 2013:
K.Balakrishnan
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli
2.K.Velu,
C/o.TAFE Employees Union,
No.10/220, Santhosapuram, Pandiyarajapuram Post, Dindigul District.
3.Management of Tractor & Farm Equipment Ltd.,
No.10/205, Kalladipatti,
Dindugul District 624 215
…Respondents W.P.No.10144 of 2013:
G.Ramakrishnan
…Petitioner
vs.
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli
2.J.Pandiyarajan,
C/o.TAFE Employees Union,
No.10/220, Santhosapuram, Pandiyarajapuram Post, Dindigul District.
W.P.No.10145 of 2013:
M.Arulprakasam
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli
2.R.Manikandan,
C/o.TAFE Employees Union,
No.10/220, Santhosapuram, Pandiyarajapuram Post, Dindigul District.
3.Management of Tractor & Farm Equipment Ltd.,
No.10/205, Kalladipatti,
Dindugul District 624 215
…Respondents W.P.No.10146 of 2013:
M.Arulprakasam
…Petitioner
vs.
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli
2.S.Pichaimani,
C/o.TAFE Employees Union,
No.10/220, Santhosapuram, Pandiyarajapuram Post, Dindigul District.
W.P.No.10147 of 2013:
M.Arulprakasam
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli
2.R.S.Mahadevan,
C/o.TAFE Employees Union,
No.10/220, Santhosapuram, Pandiyarajapuram Post, Dindigul District.
3.Management of Tractor & Farm Equipment Ltd.,
No.10/205, Kalladipatti,
Dindugul District 624 215
…Respondents W.P.No.10148 of 2013:
M.Arulprakasam
…Petitioner
vs.
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli
2.I.Selvam,
C/o.TAFE Employees Union,
No.10/220, Santhosapuram, Pandiyarajapuram Post, Dindigul District.
W.P.No.10149 of 2013:
R.Pandi
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli
2.A.Pandi,
C/o.TAFE Employees Union,
No.10/220, Santhosapuram, Pandiyarajapuram Post, Dindigul District.
3.Management of Tractor & Farm Equipment Ltd.,
No.10/205, Kalladipatti,
Dindugul District 624 215
…Respondents W.P.No.10150 of 2013:
K.Balakrishnan
…Petitioner
vs.
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli
2.V.Ramesh Babu,
C/o.TAFE Employees Union,
No.10/220, Santhosapuram, Pandiyarajapuram Post, Dindigul District.
W.P.No.10151 of 2013:
K.Balakrishnan
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli
2.S.Pothuraj,
C/o.TAFE Employees Union,
No.10/220, Santhosapuram, Pandiyarajapuram Post, Dindigul District.
3.Management of Tractor & Farm Equipment Ltd.,
No.10/205, Kalladipatti,
Dindugul District 624 215
…Respondents W.P.No.10152 of 2013:
G.Ramakrishnan
…Petitioner
vs.
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli
2.S.Nagendran,
C/o.TAFE Employees Union,
No.10/220, Santhosapuram, Pandiyarajapuram Post, Dindigul District.
W.P.No.10153 of 2013:
M.Arulprakasam
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli
2.A.Sabeer Basha,
C/o.TAFE Employees Union,
No.10/220, Santhosapuram, Pandiyarajapuram Post, Dindigul District.
3.Management of Tractor & Farm Equipment Ltd.,
No.10/205, Kalladipatti,
Dindugul District 624 215
…Respondents W.P.No.10154 of 2013:
K.Rajagopal
…Petitioner
vs.
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli
2.R.Thirunavukarasu,
C/o.TAFE Employees Union,
No.10/220, Santhosapuram, Pandiyarajapuram Post, Dindigul District.
W.P.No.10155 of 2013:
K.Balakrishnan
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli
2.C.Muthupandi,
C/o.TAFE Employees Union,
No.10/220, Santhosapuram, Pandiyarajapuram Post, Dindigul District.
3.Management of Tractor & Farm Equipment Ltd.,
No.10/205, Kalladipatti,
Dindugul District 624 215
…Respondents W.P.No.10156 of 2013:
K.Rajagopal
…Petitioner
vs.
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli
2.S.Senthilkumar,
C/o.TAFE Employees Union,
No.10/220, Santhosapuram, Pandiyarajapuram Post, Dindigul District.
W.P.No.10157 of 2013:
K.Balakrishnan
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli
2.P.Sundarakannan,
C/o.TAFE Employees Union,
No.10/220, Santhosapuram, Pandiyarajapuram Post, Dindigul District.
3.Management of Tractor & Farm Equipment Ltd.,
No.10/205, Kalladipatti,
Dindugul District 624 215
…Respondents W.P.No.10158 of 2013:
M.Arulprakasam
…Petitioner
vs.
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli
2.G.Pandiyarajan
C/o.TAFE Employees Union,
No.10/220, Santhosapuram, Pandiyarajapuram Post, Dindigul District.
W.P.No.10159 of 2013:
S.Subburayalu
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli
2.R.Selvaraj,
C/o.TAFE Employees Union,
No.10/220, Santhosapuram, Pandiyarajapuram Post, Dindigul District.
3.Management of Tractor & Farm Equipment Ltd.,
No.10/205, Kalladipatti,
Dindugul District 624 215
…Respondents W.P.No.10160 of 2013:
G.Ramakrishnan
…Petitioner
vs.
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli
2.C.Sudhakar,
C/o.TAFE Employees Union,
No.10/220, Santhosapuram, Pandiyarajapuram Post, Dindigul District.
W.P.No.10161 of 2013:
K.Rajagopal
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli
2.V.Bethusamy,
C/o.TAFE Employees Union,
No.10/220, Santhosapuram, Pandiyarajapuram Post, Dindigul District.
3.Management of Tractor & Farm Equipment Ltd.,
No.10/205, Kalladipatti,
Dindugul District 624 215
…Respondents W.P.No.10163 of 2013:
P.Kannusamy
…Petitioner
vs.
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli
2.K.Saravanan,
C/o.TAFE Employees Union,
No.10/220, Santhosapuram, Pandiyarajapuram Post, Dindigul District.
W.P.No.10164 of 2013:
P.Kannusamy
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli
2.B.Arokiyaraja,
C/o.TAFE Employees Union,
No.10/220, Santhosapuram, Pandiyarajapuram Post, Dindigul District.
3.Management of Tractor & Farm Equipment Ltd.,
No.10/205, Kalladipatti,
Dindugul District 624 215
…Respondents W.P.No.10165 of 2013:
S.Subburayalu
…Petitioner
vs.
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli
2.S.Velankanni,
C/o.TAFE Employees Union,
No.10/220, Santhosapuram, Pandiyarajapuram Post, Dindigul District.
W.P.No.10166 of 2013:
R.Pandi
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli
2.A.Balaji,
C/o.TAFE Employees Union,
No.10/220, Santhosapuram, Pandiyarajapuram Post, Dindigul District.
3.Management of Tractor & Farm Equipment Ltd.,
No.10/205, Kalladipatti,
Dindugul District 624 215
…Respondents W.P.No.10167 of 2013:
R.Pandi
…Petitioner
vs.
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli
2.M.Dhanabalan,
C/o.TAFE Employees Union,
No.10/220, Santhosapuram, Pandiyarajapuram Post, Dindigul District.
W.P.No.10168 of 2013:
G.Ramakrishnan
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli
2.C.Balakumar,
C/o.TAFE Employees Union,
No.10/220, Santhosapuram, Pandiyarajapuram Post, Dindigul District.
3.Management of Tractor & Farm Equipment Ltd.,
No.10/205, Kalladipatti,
Dindugul District 624 215
…Respondents W.P.No.10169 of 2013:
G.Ramakrishnan
…Petitioner
vs.
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli
2.S.Narayanan,
C/o.TAFE Employees Union,
No.10/220, Santhosapuram, Pandiyarajapuram Post, Dindigul District.
W.P.No.10170 of 2013:
K.Balakrishnan
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli
2.T.Rajapandi,
C/o.TAFE Employees Union,
No.10/220, Santhosapuram, Pandiyarajapuram Post, Dindigul District.
3.Management of Tractor & Farm Equipment Ltd.,
No.10/205, Kalladipatti,
Dindugul District 624 215
…Respondents W.P.No.14234 of 2013:
K.Arumugam
…Petitioner
vs.
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli
2.T.Ramesh Babu,
C/o.TAFE Employees Union,
No.10/220, Santhosapuram, Pandiyarajapuram Post, Dindigul District.
W.P.No.14235 of 2013:
Ganapathi Asari
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli
2.T.Kalamegham,
C/o.TAFE Employees Union,
No.10/220, Santhosapuram, Pandiyarajapuram Post, Dindigul District.
3.Management of Tractor & Farm Equipment Ltd.,
No.10/205, Kalladipatti,
Dindugul District 624 215
…Respondents W.P.No.14236 of 2013:
K.Arumugam
…Petitioner
vs.
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli
2.V.Thangavel,
C/o.TAFE Employees Union,
No.10/220, Santhosapuram, Pandiyarajapuram Post, Dindigul District.
W.P.No.14237 of 2013:
R.Athinarayanan
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli
2.A.K.Manikandan,
C/o.TAFE Employees Union,
No.10/220, Santhosapuram, Pandiyarajapuram Post, Dindigul District.
3.Management of Tractor & Farm Equipment Ltd.,
No.10/205, Kalladipatti,
Dindugul District 624 215
…Respondents W.P.No.14238 of 2013:
Gabrial
…Petitioner
vs.
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli
2.M.Kamatchi,
C/o.TAFE Employees Union,
No.10/220, Santhosapuram, Pandiyarajapuram Post, Dindigul District.
W.P.No.14239 of 2013:
Gabrial
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli
2.K.Suresh,
C/o.TAFE Employees Union,
No.10/220, Santhosapuram, Pandiyarajapuram Post, Dindigul District.
3.Management of Tractor & Farm Equipment Ltd.,
No.10/205, Kalladipatti,
Dindugul District 624 215
…Respondents W.P.No.14240 of 2013:
S.Narasimhan
…Petitioner
vs.
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli
2.M.Jothi,
C/o.TAFE Employees Union,
No.10/220, Santhosapuram, Pandiyarajapuram Post, Dindigul District.
W.P.No.14241 of 2013:
G.Sakthivel
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli
2.R.Ramesh,
C/o.TAFE Employees Union,
No.10/220, Santhosapuram, Pandiyarajapuram Post, Dindigul District.
3.Management of Tractor & Farm Equipment Ltd.,
No.10/205, Kalladipatti,
Dindugul District 624 215
…Respondents W.P.No.14242 of 2013:
G.Sakthivel
…Petitioner
vs.
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli
2.K.Balasubramanian,
C/o.TAFE Employees Union,
No.10/220, Santhosapuram, Pandiyarajapuram Post, Dindigul District.

W.P.No.14243 of 2013:
G.Sakthivel
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli
2.G.Sundar,
C/o.TAFE Employees Union,
No.10/220, Santhosapuram, Pandiyarajapuram Post, Dindigul District.
3.Management of Tractor & Farm Equipment Ltd.,
No.10/205, Kalladipatti,
Dindugul District 624 215
…Respondents W.P.No.14244 of 2013:
M/s.Beta Enterprises,
Rep by its Proprietor, L.Deepak,
Having Office at,
1st Floor, No.113, VOC Street,
Madurai 1
…Petitioner
vs.
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli
2.T.Jenagan,
C/o.TAFE Employees Union,
No.10/220, Santhosapuram, Pandiyarajapuram Post, Dindigul District.
3.Management of Tractor & Farm Equipment Ltd.,
No.10/205, Kalladipatti,
Dindugul District 624 215
…Respondents W.P.No.14245 of 2013:
M/s.Beta Enterprises,
Rep by its Proprietor, L.Deepak,
Having Office at,
1st Floor, No.113, VOC Street,
Madurai 1
…Petitioner
vs.
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli
2.E.Ravikumar,
C/o.TAFE Employees Union,
No.10/220, Santhosapuram, Pandiyarajapuram Post, Dindigul District.
3.Management of Tractor & Farm Equipment Ltd.,
No.10/205, Kalladipatti,
Dindugul District 624 215
…Respondents W.P.No.14246 of 2013:
M/s.Beta Enterprises,
Rep by its Proprietor, L.Deepak,
Having Office at,
1st Floor, No.113, VOC Street,
Madurai 1
…Petitioner
vs.
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli
2.V.Arivalagan,
C/o.TAFE Employees Union,
No.10/220, Santhosapuram, Pandiyarajapuram Post, Dindigul District.
3.Management of Tractor & Farm Equipment Ltd.,
No.10/205, Kalladipatti,
Dindugul District 624 215
…Respondents W.P.No.14248 of 2013:
M/s.Beta Enterprises,
Rep by its Proprietor, L.Deepak,
Having Office at,
1st Floor, No.113, VOC Street,
Madurai 1
…Petitioner
vs.
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli
2.G.Sankar,
C/o.TAFE Employees Union,
No.10/220, Santhosapuram, Pandiyarajapuram Post, Dindigul District.
3.Management of Tractor & Farm Equipment Ltd.,
No.10/205, Kalladipatti,
Dindugul District 624 215
…Respondents
W.P.No.14249 of 2013:
M/s.Beta Enterprises,
Rep by its Proprietor, L.Deepak,
Having Office at,
1st Floor, No.113, VOC Street,
Madurai 1
…Petitioner
vs.
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli
2.A.Kottaian,
C/o.TAFE Employees Union,
No.10/220, Santhosapuram, Pandiyarajapuram Post, Dindigul District.
3.Management of Tractor & Farm Equipment Ltd.,
No.10/205, Kalladipatti,
Dindugul District 624 215
…Respondents W.P.No.14252 of 2013:
R.Athinarayanan
…Petitioner
vs.
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli
2.D.Sivakumar,
C/o.TAFE Employees Union,
No.10/220, Santhosapuram, Pandiyarajapuram Post, Dindigul District.
3.Management of Tractor & Farm Equipment Ltd.,
No.10/205, Kalladipatti,
Dindugul District 624 215
…Respondents W.P.No.14253 of 2013:
R.Athinarayanan
…Petitioner
vs.
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli
2. K.Balamurugan,
C/o.TAFE Employees Union,
No.10/220, Santhosapuram, Pandiyarajapuram Post, Dindigul District.
3.Management of Tractor & Farm Equipment Ltd.,
No.10/205, Kalladipatti,
Dindugul District 624 215
…Respondents W.P.No.14254 of 2013:
R.Athinarayanan
…Petitioner
vs.
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli
2.D.Samson Dhinakaran,
C/o.TAFE Employees Union,
No.10/220, Santhosapuram,
Pandiyarajapuram Post, Dindigul District.
3.Management of Tractor & Farm Equipment Ltd.,
No.10/205, Kalladipatti,
Dindugul District 624 215
…Respondents W.P.No.14255 of 2013:
R.Athinarayanan
…Petitioner
vs.
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli
2.S.Anthony,
C/o.TAFE Employees Union,
No.10/220, Santhosapuram, Pandiyarajapuram Post, Dindigul District.
3.Management of Tractor & Farm Equipment Ltd.,
No.10/205, Kalladipatti,
Dindugul District 624 215
…Respondents W.P.No.14256 of 2013:
R.Athinarayanan
…Petitioner
vs.
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli
2.P.Govindan,
C/o.TAFE Employees Union,
No.10/220, Santhosapuram, Pandiyarajapuram Post, Dindigul District.
3.Management of Tractor & Farm Equipment Ltd.,
No.10/205, Kalladipatti,
Dindugul District 624 215
…Respondents W.P.No.14257 of 2013:
R.Athinarayanan
…Petitioner
vs.
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli
2.G.Palanivel,
C/o.TAFE Employees Union,
No.10/220, Santhosapuram, Pandiyarajapuram Post, Dindigul District.
3.Management of Tractor & Farm Equipment Ltd.,
No.10/205, Kalladipatti,
Dindugul District 624 215
…Respondents W.P.No.14258 of 2013:
M.G.Kumaran
…Petitioner
vs.
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli
2.T.Viswanathan,
C/o.TAFE Employees Union,
No.10/220, Santhosapuram, Pandiyarajapuram Post, Dindigul District.
3.Management of Tractor & Farm Equipment Ltd.,
No.10/205, Kalladipatti,
Dindugul District 624 215
…Respondents W.P.No.14259 of 2013:
A.Ilanchelianarayanan
…Petitioner
vs.
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli
2.G.Krishnakumar,
C/o.TAFE Employees Union,
No.10/220, Santhosapuram, Pandiyarajapuram Post, Dindigul District.
3.Management of Tractor & Farm Equipment Ltd.,
No.10/205, Kalladipatti,
Dindugul District 624 215
…Respondents

W.P.No.14260 of 2013:
K.Arumugam
…Petitioner
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli
2.O.Lakshmanan,
C/o.TAFE Employees Union,
No.10/220, Santhosapuram, Pandiyarajapuram Post, Dindigul District.
3.Management of Tractor & Farm Equipment Ltd.,
No.10/205, Kalladipatti,
Dindugul District 624 215
…Respondents W.P.No.14261 of 2013:
A.Ilanchelianarayanan
…Petitioner
vs.
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli
2.T.Senthilkumar,
C/o.TAFE Employees Union,
No.10/220, Santhosapuram, Pandiyarajapuram Post, Dindigul District.
W.P.No.14262 of 2013:
K.Arumugam
…Petitioner
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli
2.S.Selvakumar,
C/o.TAFE Employees Union,
No.10/220, Santhosapuram, Pandiyarajapuram Post, Dindigul District.
3.Management of Tractor & Farm Equipment Ltd.,
No.10/205, Kalladipatti,
Dindugul District 624 215
…Respondents W.P.No.14263 of 2013:
G.Sakthivel
…Petitioner
vs.
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli
2.K.Bharat,
C/o.TAFE Employees Union,
No.10/220, Santhosapuram, Pandiyarajapuram Post, Dindigul District.
W.P.No.14264 of 2013:
A.Gabriel
…Petitioner
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli
2.M.David Sahayaraj,
C/o.TAFE Employees Union,
No.10/220, Santhosapuram, Pandiyarajapuram Post, Dindigul District.
3.Management of Tractor & Farm Equipment Ltd.,
No.10/205, Kalladipatti,
Dindugul District 624 215
…Respondents W.P.No.14265 of 2013:
A.Athinarayanan
…Petitioner
vs.
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli
2.M.Vetrivel,
C/o.TAFE Employees Union,
No.10/220, Santhosapuram, Pandiyarajapuram Post, Dindigul District.
W.P.No.14266 of 2013:
G.Sakthivel
…Petitioner
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli
2.S.Senthilkumar,
C/o.TAFE Employees Union,
No.10/220, Santhosapuram, Pandiyarajapuram Post, Dindigul District.
3.Management of Tractor & Farm Equipment Ltd.,
No.10/205, Kalladipatti,
Dindugul District 624 215
…Respondents W.P.No.14267 of 2013:
G.Sakthivel
…Petitioner
vs.
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli
2.M.Jeyasudhan,
C/o.TAFE Employees Union,
No.10/220, Santhosapuram, Pandiyarajapuram Post, Dindigul District.
W.P.No.14268 of 2013:
G.Sakthivel
…Petitioner
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli
2.R.Kannan,
C/o.TAFE Employees Union,
No.10/220, Santhosapuram, Pandiyarajapuram Post, Dindigul District.
3.Management of Tractor & Farm Equipment Ltd.,
No.10/205, Kalladipatti,
Dindugul District 624 215
…Respondents W.P.No.14269 of 2013:
Ganapathi Asari
…Petitioner
vs.
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli
2.D.Selvakumar,
C/o.TAFE Employees Union,
No.10/220, Santhosapuram, Pandiyarajapuram Post, Dindigul District.

W.P.No.14270 of 2013:
M/s.Beta Enterprises,
Rep by its Proprietor, L.Deepak,
Having Office at,
1st Floor, No.113, VOC Street,
Madurai 1
…Petitioner
vs.
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli
2.B.Muthuselvam,
C/o.TAFE Employees Union,
No.10/220, Santhosapuram, Pandiyarajapuram Post, Dindigul District.
3.Management of Tractor & Farm Equipment Ltd.,
No.10/205, Kalladipatti,
Dindugul District 624 215
…Respondents
Common Prayer:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for records connected with the Award dated 22.10.2012 made in batch of industrial Disputes passed by the 1 respondent and quash the same in so far as I.D.Nos. 83/2006, 35/2006, 54/2006, 42/2006, 53/2006, 69/2006, 62/2006, 56/2006,
65/2006, 90/2006, 48/2006, 52/2006, 58/2006, 45/2006, 41/2006,
67/2006, 106/2006, 82/2006, 39/2006, 59/2006, 70/2006, 105/2006,
71/2006, 85/2006, 47/2006, 37/2006, 38/2006, 119/2006, 121/2006, 122/2006, 103/2006, 63/2006, 64/2006, 51/2006, 128/2006, 87/2006,
36/2006, 60/2006, 61/2006, 84/2006, 44/2006, 55/2006, 72/2006,
74/2006, 76/2006, 79/2006, 92/2006, 93/2006, 94/2006, 98/2006,
99/2006, 1092006, 110/2006, 111/2006, 114/2006, 115/2006, 116/2006,
118/2006, 113/2006, 44/2008, 129/2006, 45/2008, 46/2008, 43/2006, 57/2006, 75/2006, 78/2006, 81/2006, 91/2006 & 95/2006 are concerned in so far it relates to a direction issued to the petitioner to make payment of one month salary in lieu of notice, 15 days salary for each calendar year of service, from the date of joining to till the date of the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order towards compensation. the petitioner is directed to pay 15 days salary for each completed calendar year of service towards gratuity for the period from the date of joining to till the date of order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order towards compensation. The petitioner is directed to pay 15 days salary for each completed calendar year of service towards gratuity for the period from the date of joining to till the date of order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the Labour Court order. In case of default, the petitioner is directed to pay the said amount at the rate of 9% interest from the date of the order to till date of realisation.
For Petitioner
in all petitions : Mr.M.E.Ilango, for Mr.S.Vedachalam & Mr.K.Jayaraman
For Respondents
in all petitions : R1- Labour Court Mr.V.Ajay Khose, for Ms.S.Anji, for R2
Mr.Krishna Srinivasa, Sr.Counsel for Mr.Ramasubramaniam for R3 W.P.No.2245 of 2014:
1. M.Saravanan
2. T.Ramesh Babu
3. R.Selvaraj
4. C.Sudhakar
5. S.Nagendran
6. I.Selvam
7. T.Gopal
8. M.David Sagayaraj
9. M.Kamatchi
10.R.S.Mahadevan
11. G.Pandiarajan
12. J.Pandiarajan
13. S.James William
14. C.Balakumar
15. R.Manikandan
16. M.Karupasamy
17. T.Sundaravadivel
18. K.Suresh
19. S.Sankar
20. M.Vetrivel
21. S.Pitchaimani
22. A.Sabeer Batcha
23. T.Kalamegam
24. V.Thangavelu
25. G.Mani
26. A.Balaji
27. M.Thanabalan
28. S.Balaganeshan
29. K.Kannan
30. A.Pandi
31. J.Venkatesh
32. K.Sivakumar
33. R.Thirunavukarasu
34. S.Senthilkumar
35. M.Jothi
36. R.Ramesh
37. S.Senthilkumar
38. K.Balasubramanian
39. M.Jeyasuthan
40. G.Sundar
41. R.Kannan
42. S.Pothuraj
43. R.Sivasubramanian
44.A.K.Manikandan
45. B.Sundarakannan
46. T.Rajapandi
47. K.Velu
48. D.Selvakumar
49. D.Janagan
50. V.Arivalagan
51. P.Muthuselvam
52. V.Ravichandran
53. V.David
54. G.Sankar
55. V.Kottaiyan
56. D.Vijaya Narayanan
57. K.Paulpandi
58. S.Velankanni
59. C.Muthupandi
60. V.Ramesh Babu61.P.Sivakumar
62. K.Balamurugan
63. D.Samson Dinakaran
64. G.Krishnakumar
65. S.Anthony
66. G.Govindan
67. G.Palanivel
68. G.Viswanathan
69. V.Bethusamy
70. K.Saravanan
71. P.Arokiyaraja
72. S.Narayanan
73. T.Senthilkumar
74. O.Lakshmanan
75. S.Selvakumar
76. K.Bharath
…Petitioners
vs.
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli
2.The Management of M/s.Tractors and Farm Equipment Ltd.,
K.Patti Plant, Kalladipatti Post, Nilakkottai Circle, Dindugul District.
3. S.Subburayalu
4. G.Ramakrishnan
5. A.Shiyamalakumar
6. M.Arulprakasam7.A.Caberiyel
8. R.Athinarayanan
9. R.Pandi
10. K.Rajagopal
11. S.Narasimman
12. G.Sakthivel
13. K.Balakrishnan
14. M.Ganapathi Asari
15.Peeta Enterprises
16.A.Ilancheliya Narayanan
17.M.G.Kumaran
18.P.Kannusamy
19.K.P.Rajkumar
…Respondents Prayer:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records from the 1st respondent-Labour Court relating to the impugned common award dated 22.10.2012 passed in cases I.D. Nos.35 to 39, 41 to 45, 47 to 49, 51 to 72, 74 to 76, 78, 79, 81 to 85, 87, 90 to 92, 94 to 101,
103, 105, 106, 109 to 111, 113 to 116, 118, 119, 121, 122, 128 & 129/2006, 44 to 46/08 dismissing them filed by the petitioners herein, quash the same and consequently to hold that the petitioners are the direct workmen of the 2nd respondent and to direct the 2nd respondent to reinstate the petitioners in service with continuity of service, back wages from 16.02.2005 and all other consequential and attend benefits and award cost.
For Petitioner
in all petitions : Mr.V.Ajay Khose, for Mr.S.Arunachalam, for P13, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34, 50,

For Respondents 53, 54, 57, 58, 62 & 72
Ms.S.Anji,
for P1 to 12, 14 to 27, 30, 33, 35 to 49, 51, 52, 55, 56, 59, 61,
63 to 71 & 73 to 77
in all petitions : R1 – Labour Court
Mr.Krishna Srinivasan, Sr.Counsel, for Mr.S.Ramasubramaniam for R2
Service Awaited for
R3 to R12, 14 & 16 to 19
R13 – No appearance
Mr.M.E.Ilango, for R15
COMMON ORDER
The writ petitions, in W.P.(MD)Nos.10133 to 10137, 10139 to 10161, 10163 to 10170, 14234 to 14246, 14248, 14249, 14252 to 14270 of 2013, have been filed by the Contractors, whereas, the writ petition, in W.P.(MD)No.2245 of 2014, has been filed by the labours/workmen challenging the impugned Award dated 22.10.2012 passed by the Labour
Court.
2. Though very many writ petitions were filed, this Court is inclined to refer the status of the parties as mentioned in the W.P.(MD).No.2245 of 2014, which was filed by labours/workmen against the Management and Contractors. For the sake of brevity, convenience and better understanding, the petitioners in W.P.(MD)No.2245 of 2014 shall be referred to as “Workmen” or “petitioners”, the 1st respondent shall be referred to as “Labour Court”, the 2nd respondent in W.P.(MD)No.2245 of 2014 shall be referred to as “Management” or “TAFE” or “Company” and the respondents 3 to 19 in W.P.(MD)No.2245 of 2014 shall be referred to as “Contractors”.
3. Petitioners’ submission:
3.1 Mr.V.Ajay Khose, learned counsel, had appeared for Mr.V.Arunachalam, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners/workmen and submitted that the writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.2245 of 2014 has been filed challenging the impugned award dated 22.10.2012 passed by the 1st respondent/Labour Court.
3.2 He would submit that all the petitioners, who were theworkmen of the Company, were directly engaged by the said Company and their salary, wages, including appointments were also provided by the said Company.
3.3 However, Company, in order to camouflage the act of direct engagement of petitioners, they had set up the respondents 3 to 19 as Contractors. Thereafter, without the knowledge of petitioners, the Company had entered into the contracts with the Contractors and subsequently, the contractors had issued the appointment orders and paid salaries and wages to the petitioners, on behalf of the Company.
3.4 Upon the direction of the 2nd respondent, the name of the Contractors have also been changed from time to time, in order to show that at any point of time, the petitioners had not worked under one
Contractor for a period of more than 480 days in 2 years.
3.5 At the time of oral termination made by the Contractors, all the petitioners had completed 7 years of service with the Company. Even after the completion of 7 years as temporary employees, the petitioners were not made as permanent employees by the Company. Therefore, the petitioners were constrained to raise the industrial dispute before the Labour Court. However, without considering the sham and nominal act of the 2nd respondent against the workmen, the Labour Court had passed the impugned award, in favour of the 2nd respondent, based on the documents provided by the Company and the Contractors.
3.6 In the said impugned award, it was held that the petitioners are not the employees of Company, but, they are the employees of their respective Contractors. Accordingly, the oral termination made by the Contractors was set aside. However, since the petitioners were not inclined to work under the Contractors, no order had been passed for reinstatement of the petitioners and the Labour Court had declined the prayer of the petitioners, to declare them as workmen of the Company.
3.7 The Contracts, which are sham and nominal, should have beendeclared as null and void by the Labour Court, in which case, the impugned award would have been passed by holding that the petitioners are the workmen of Company but not the Contractors. Thereafter, the status of the workmen would be decided based on the nature of work carried on by them with the Company. If the petitioners are declared as workmen of the Company, they could have been entitled for other benefits also. However, the aforesaid exercises were not at all carried out by the Labour Court. Hence, he would submit that the impugned award dated 22.10.2012 is suffered with infirmities and thus, it is not sustainable in law.
3.8 In support of his contentions, he referred to the following judgments, rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court:
(i) Steel Authority of India Ltd., & Others vs. National Union Water front workers & others, reported in, (2001) 7 SCC 1;
(ii) Gujarat Electricity Board vs. Hind Mazdoor
Sabha & Others, reported in, (1995) 5 SCC 27;
(iii) D.C.Dewan Mohideed Sahib & Sons vs.
The Industrial Tribunal, Madras, reported in (1964) 2
LLJ 663;
(iv) General Manager, ONGC vs. ONGC Contractual Workers Union, reported in, (2008) 12 SCC 275;
(v) Secretary, HSEB vs. Suresh & Others, reported in (1999) 3 SCC 601;
3.9 By referring the above judgments, he would submit that whatever the Contracts, entered into between the Contractors and the Company, are sham and nominal and the same have to be declared as null and void. However, without looking into the said aspect, the impugned award came to be passed by the Labour Court.
3.10 On behalf of the petitioners/workmen, 2 workmen were examined as WW1 & WW2 and the Exhibits, viz., Ex.W1 to Ex.W51, were produced in support of the claim made by them. However, without considering the same, the impugned award was passed, against the interest of the petitioners/workmen, based on the documents produced by the 2nd respondent/Company and the respondents 3 to 19/Contractors. Therefore, he requests this Court to set aside the said impugned order dated 22.10.2012 and declare the petitioners as workmen of the Company.
4 Respondents’ submission:
4.1 Per contra, Mr.Krishna Srinivasan, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Company would submit that in this case, the petitioners are not the workmen of 2nd respondent but they are the workmen of the Contractors.
4.2 The petitioners are registered with their respective Contractors under the Contract Labours (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, (hereinafter referred to as “CLRA”) and there is no master and servant relationship between the petitioners and the Company.
4.3 The Company was registered as a “Principal Employer” underthe CLRA. The Registration was obtained in the year 1997 itself. The Company have been engaging the Contractors for doing jobs such as
Mechanical, Tinkering, Welding, Painting, Carpentry, Electrical, etc. Accordingly, the Contractors have engaged their own workmen for the purpose of fulfilling their obligations to the Company. The workmen were controlled and supervised by the Contractors. All wages, PF and statutory dues were also paid by the Contractors and not by the Company.
4.4 Further, in the Industrial Dispute petitions, the petitioners had neither pleaded that they were working under the control and supervision of TAFE nor pleaded that the contracts, which was entered between the TAFE and the Contractors, are sham, nominal or paper transaction.
4.5 The plant was originally being operated by M/s.George Oakes
Ltd. The Contract labour system was in place even when M/s.George Oakes Ltd., was operating the plant. TAFE/2nd respondent had commenced its commercial operations on 01.06.1998 and obtained registration under the CLRA in December 1997 itself for “Trial Run”.
The TAFE/2nd respondent has obtained the Registration as a “Principal Employer” under CLRA right from December 1997. Hence, the petitioners were not the workmen of the 2nd respondent/Company and they are the workmen of the Contractors, who are arrayed herein as respondents 3 to 19.
4.6 The 2nd respondent/Company has a separate PF Code
(TN/3429) for deducting PF contribution for its employees. A separate Common Code No.TN/MD/41522 has been allotted for the Contractors.
The Contractors had opened a common bank account for deposing PF
Contributions of their employees. This system was in vogue till September 2004. Subsequently, separate code numbers were allotted to each contractor with effect from 01.10.2004.
4.7 Therefore, he would contend that by referring the common Code Number allotted to the Contractors, the petitioners are trying to make out their case, as if they are the employees of the Company. However, the fact remains that they are workmen of the Contractor and in turn, they are allotted to the Company. As stated above, separate code numbers were allotted to each contractor with effect from 01.10.2004. The petitioners had signed the Form 13 on their own will and without any coercion.
4.8 After taking into consideration of all the aforesaid aspects, the Labour Court had come to the categorical conclusion that the petitioners are not direct workmen of the Company but the workmen of the Contractors.
4.9 As far as the contention raised by the petitioners/workmen that the Contract was sham and nominal is concerned, he would submit that petitioners are registered with their respective Contractors under the CLRA and the Contractors have also been registered, however, the
CLRA will not be applicable since no notification was issued to bring the 2nd respondent-Company under Section 10 of the CLRA. Since no notification was issued, the application of Section 10 of CLRA would not arise. Had there been any issuance of the notification, the petitioners would have been brought into the ambit of Section 10 of CLRA, even then, they can engage for any particular transaction, in which case, the Labour Court have to examine the aspect about the nature of Contract as to whether it is sham and nominal.
4.10 On the other hand, the petitioners are, now, making the submissions as if the Company will come under the category of Section 10 of CLRA and as if the notification was issued by the Central Board and all the Contracts was required to be scrutinized in terms of the said provisions. Even though, as contended by the petitioners, if the Company had camouflage and intend to bring the workmen under the Contract Labour under the Contractors, in order to defeat some of the benefits available to the workmen and not to show them as workers of the Company with a malified intention, still the Labour Court can very well examine this aspect. In this case, after examining all these aspects, the Labour Court had arrived at a conclusion that the Contracts are not sham and nominal and declared the petitioners are not the workmen of the Company. Therefore, there is no merits in this case. Hence, he prays for the dismissal of these petitions.
4.11 As far as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of theContractors are concerned, though they have made objections for the award, they relied upon the submissions made by the 2nd respondent and submitted that they are ready and willing to pay the compensation to the petitioners as ordered by the Labour Court vide the impugned award. Further, he would submit that the petitioners are not willing to work under the Contractors. Hence, he requests this Court to confirm the award passed by the Labour Court and accordingly, prayed for dismissal of these petitions.
5. I have given due consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and also perused the materials available on record.
6. The only issue that arises for consideration in the present case is as to whether the petitioners are the workmen of the TAFE or the
Contractors under the various Labour Legislations ?
7. In the cases on hand, the petitioners were orally terminated bythe Contractors and hence, they had filed the Industrial Dispute petitions before the Labour Court to declare that the petitioners are not the workmen of Contractors but the Company.
8. After hearing both parties, the Labour Court has arrived at a conclusion that the petitioners are not the workmen of Company but they are the workmen of the Contractors.
9. Before the Labour Court, the documents, i.e., Ex.W1 to Ex.W51 were filed on behalf of the petitioners, and the documents, i.e., Ex.M1 to Ex.M264, were filed on behalf of the respondents. Further, 2 employees, viz., WW1 & WW2, were examined on behalf of the petitioners and 4 witnesses, viz., MW1 to MW4, were examined on behalf of the respondents. After examining all the aforesaid oral and documentary evidences, the 1st respondent/Labour Court had arrived at the conclusion and passed the impugned award dated 22.10.2012, stating that the petitioners are not the workmen of the Company.
10. In this case, the petitioners had extensively argued on theaspect that the Contract entered between the Company and the Contractors were sham and nominal. According to the petitioners, if the said aspect was dealt with and the Contract is declared as null and void, ultimately, the petitioners would be directly considered as workmen of the 2nd respondent/company. No matter as to whether the notification was issued under Section 10 of the CLRA, so as to bring the Company under the ambit of the said Act or not, both the Contractors as well as the Company have to be registered under the CLRA. In this case, there is no dispute on the aspect that both the Company and the Contractors were registered under CLRA and admittedly, no notification was issued for prohibiting the Company from engaging the Contract Labours. Under these circumstances, when there is no such notification, this Court can safely conclude that there is no prohibition for the Company to engage the Contract Labours.
11. However, the aspect as to whether the hiring of employees/workmen is direct or indirect has to be taken into consideration. In this case, the Company had hired the workmen through
Contractors and hence, it is an indirect hiring of the workmen by the Company. In such case, the workmen will work through the Contractor and thus, the the records of the workmen, viz., wage register, ESI, PF, etc., will be maintained by the Contractor. On the other hand, in the case of direct hiring, the aforesaid records of the workmen would be directly maintained by the Company. In both the cases of direct and indirect hiring, ultimately, all the workmen will work for the Company alone.
12. Therefore, for Contract Labours, either hired directly by the Company or indirectly through the Contractors, the CLRA will be looked into from the perspective of the workmen and accordingly, the benefit available under the CLRA would be made available to the said Contract Labours. This is only to the extent of safeguarding the interest of the workmen when they are working under Contract. Accordingly, the workmen, who were worked as Contract Labours in the Company, either directly or through the Contractors, the said workmen will not lose their benefits available under other Labour Law Statutes apart from CLRA.
13. At this juncture, it would be apposite to extract the provisionsof Section 10 of the CLRA, which reads as follows:
“10. Prohibition of employment of contract labour.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the appropriate Government may, after consultation with the Central Board or, as the case may be, a State Board, prohibit, by notification in the Official Gazette, employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work in any establishment.
(2) Before issuing any notification under subsection (1) in relation to an establishment, the appropriate Government shall have regard to the conditions of work and benefits provided for the contract labour in that establishment and other relevant factors, such as—
(a) whether the process, operation or other work is incidental to, or necessary for the industry, trade, business, manufacture or occupation that is carried on in the establishment;
(b) whether it is of perennial nature, that is to say, it is of sufficient duration having regard to the nature of industry, trade, business, manufacture or occupation carried on in that establishment;
(c) whether it is done ordinarily through, regular workmen in that establishment or an establishment similar thereto;
(d) whether it is sufficient to employ considerable number of wholetime workmen
14. A bare perusal of Section 10(1) of CLRA would show that the appropriate Government may, after consultation with the Central Board or, as the case may be, a State Board, prohibit, by notification in the Official Gazette, employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work in any establishment. In the case on hand, admittedly, no notification was issued in the Official Gazette to bring the 2nd respondent in terms of the provisions of Section 10 of the CLRA. Therefore, there was no prohibition for the 2nd respondent to engage the Contract Labour.
15. Even if the provisions of Section 10 of CLRA is applicable, i.e., Company is notified under Section 10(1) of CLRA, in which case, the Court will look into the aspect as to whether the Contracts entered between the parties are sham and nominal, if any plea is made. In such case, if the Court arrived at a conclusion that the Contract entered between the Contractors and the Company is sham and nominal, then the workmen will be considered as the direct workmen of the Company and not the Contractor.
16. In the present case, to examine the said aspect, the LabourCourt has extensively gone into the evidences. The Company had produced evidence for the registration as principal employer, which was marked as Ex.M124. Further, they produced Ex.M15 to Ex.M120 & Ex.M138, which are the wage registers of the various Contractors. In the oral evidence of WW1, Mr.Dhanapal, had admitted to the extent that TAFE has not given him any appointment order; termination order was issued by the Contractors; the workmen have not filed any documents to prove that TAFE paid wages; they have not stated in the ID petitions that they were working under the control and supervision of TAFE; Admission that in earlier proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act, the Union had sought for relief of abolition of the Contract Labour system, thus admitting that such a system was in place earlier; He was working in George Oakes; There was a Contractor called Subramani in George Oakes; The workmen received their wages from the Contractor only; The workmen signed the wage register after receiving the wages from the Contractor;
17. Therefore, based on all the aforesaid oral and documentaryevidences, the Labour Court came to a conclusion that the petitioners are not the workmen of the Company. Thus, the 1st respondent had rightly rejected the contention of the petitioners that the Contracts are sham and nominal based on the available materials as well as oral evidences. While examining the evidences relied upon by the Labour Court, it is crystal clear that the Contracts entered between the 2nd respondent with the Contractor is not sham and nominal. Therefore, the issue raised on the aspect that the Contracts are sham and nominal was not established on the part of the petitioner, so as to, declare the Contracts as null and void.
18. At this juncture, it would be apposite to extract the relevant
portion of the impugned award dated 22.10.2012 passed by the 1st respondent/Labour Court, which reads as follows:
“After hearing the rival submissions, in order to decide this issue, it will be useful to refer the deposition of WW1, which reads as follows:
“$hh;$; xh;f;fpYk; ntiy ghh;j;Js;nsd;/ m’;F fhz;l;uhf;lh; Rg;gpukzp vd;W brhd;dhy; rhpjhd;”
So, W.W.1 admitted that the same workers had been engaged or employed by contractor at George Oaks Ltd., also. W.W.1 further admitted that he also along with others worked there as contract workers.
i) Ex.M.140 revealed that it is a work order issued to George Oaks Ltd., to M.W.2 and M.W.2 was a contractor M/s George Oaks Ltd., even before 1997.
ii) Ex.M.127, 128 revealed that contractors had
been paid charges and Tax was deducted.
iii) Ex.W.1 proved that the contractor Ramakrishnan is in the photo and it was taken before 1998. But evidence relating to this photo is not disputed.
iv) Ex,M.134 revealed that MW2 had taken Provident Fund to contract workers who are also workers and petitioners in some of the present Industrial Disputes.
[D.Pandiyarajan, S.Nagendren, and Sundaravadivelu.]
v) Ex.M.142 revealed that these documents are pay slip relating to the period 1991 and they were issued to workers like petitioners. Petitioner in I.D.No.54/206 is one among such or workers.
vi) The management had registered the establishment as principal employer in 1997 and it is proved by Ex.M.124. The names of 2nd respondents were found in the enclosure of Ex.?.124. vii) The contractors/2nd respondents had obtained
license from competent authority in 1998.
viii) The written offer letter was given by the 2nd respondent and on that basis work order was given to 2nd respondent by 1 respondent.
ix) The written stamped agreement for contract for work or service was entered between to 2nd respondent and 1″ respondent
x) The wage register Ex.M.15 to 120 and 138proved these registers were maintained even before 2005 and they were periodically inspected by competent statutory officers. These reports related to the period from 1998.
xi) W.W.1 also admitted that petitioners/workerssignatures are found in wage registers, Ex.M.15 to 120, 138 and according to him, it was signed after receiving salary.
xii) W.W.1 further admitted that even during conciliation, the workers had received salary only from contractors and not from management.
xiii) Ex.M.20 proved that Bonus was paid to
workmen by contractors. W.W.1 also admitted the same. xiv) These documents do not contain the signatures
of management representatives. samt of some of xv) Production of such documents by M.W.1 is also admissible and acceptable as management and contractors are bound to maintain such register under Rule 29 of Contract Labour Act Rules.
xvi) W.W.1 further admitted that they had not specifically pleaded in all disputes that they were under the control and supervision of management/1st respondent. xvii) W.W.1 further admitted that petitioner in ID.117/06 and other 26 petitioners/workmen were working under respective contractors and they were dismissed by these contractors.
xviii) W.W.1 further admitted that dismissal order
was sent by contractors along with cheque.
Apart from these admissions made by W.W.1, the work order Ex.M.126 and Form 16A, Ex.M.128, submitted by respondents proved that the contractors were given work and charges were paid and tax deduction were made for the respective periods which is much before the alleged date of dispute, 16.02.2005.
All there oral and documentary evidences referred above revealed and proved that the TAFE was having arrangements with George Oaks Ltd., from 1991 and these contractors/2md respondents also were doing contract service from 1991 an from 1997, the 1st respondent had obtained license and registered as principal employer with enclosure of contractors, who are second respondent and the same or some of
contractors continued by giving offer letter by getting work order, and agreement, and employed the workers/petitioners herein from 1998 till 15.02.2005.
These material evidences revealed and proved that the workers/petitioners were not working under 1 respondent/management directly under their supervision or control by receiving salary from management directly.
Ex. W.1,3,5 documents and increase of Rs.800/- in salary no way prove that workmen were direct employees of management/1″ respondent. It is not proved that
Rs.800/- was increased by management
The contention of petitioner workers, that since they were working in the establishment premises and as the premise, raw materials, finished product belonged to the management, the broader presumption that the workmen are direct employees of 1st respondent cannot be accepted in this case, because of W.W.1 oral admission of his status of contract labour, and order of dismissal issued by contractors, date of registration and license of contractors, voluminous registers, wage and attendance and bonus register maintained by contractors and which was periodically checked by competent statutory authority proved beyond doubt that within the premises of 1″ respondent, contract labour system was prevailing in 1″ respondent establishment. Since the first respondent had registered as principal employer and contractors had obtained license, under Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, contract labour system was existing in the 1″ respondent company from 1981 as per Law.
This fact is further confirmed by a judgement of Hon’ble High court of Karnataka in case between Tractors and Farm Equipment Ltd., Karnataka Vs State of
Karnataka reported in 2003(3) L.L.N. 1110 in which it is held as follows:
“Relevant aspects not considered before issue of notification:- Petitioner challenges notification prohibiting contract labour in certain operations in petitioner company.
HELD: On facts and evidence, there was neither consideration nor application of mind by the State
Government to an relevant aspect referred to in S.10(2) before taking decision to prohibit contract labour in petitioner’s establishment. Notification is therefore declared invalid and is quashed.”
When contract labours system was prohibited by a notification, Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka came to conclusion that contract labour system was prevailing in the same company. This Judgement also supports the case of 1″ respondent that they have contract labour system and engaged contractors for doing certain works in their premise.
In view of the material evidences, the contention of petitioners/workmen that only on 16.02.2005 the 1st respondent attempted to introduce contract labour system is not acceptable as it is contrary to documentary evidences and oral evidence of W.W.1.
Similarly, the contention of workers that they came to know the name of respective contractors, while conciliation proceedings was pending before Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Dindigul and workmen impleaded respective contractors on the advise of Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Dindigul is also unbelievable.
The admission of W.W.2 in Sling a case by respective individual workmen against the respective individual contractors on 16.02.2005, compel this Court to come to conclusion that workers petitioners had not come to know about the name of contractors only on the instruction of Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Dindigul.
In view of admission of W.W.1, this Court can safely come to conclusion that the petitioners were workers under the contractors from 1991. It is also acceptable that they were brought by the same contractors in 1998 in 1″ respondent establishment. It is proved by Wage Registers Ex.M.15 to 120 and 138.
Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta delivered a jundgement in a case between Workmen, through Colliery Mazdoor Sabha Vs. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal and Others reported in 2004 (4) LLN 252 in which it is held as follows:
“Effect of non-resignation-Even if principal employer not registered under S.7 permitting him to engage contractors, and contractor not registered under S.12 allowing him to engage labour on contract, workmen cannot claim to be direct employees of organization, view of evidence that work orders issued in name of contractors and issuance of cheques to them for disbursement of amounts to workers who were engaged by them. Writ petition dismissed.”
All these oral and documentary evidences and circumstances proved that petitioners/workmen had miserably failed to prove that they were directly employed by the 1st respondent/management and management had dismissed them from service on 16.02.2005. But the same documents proved that the petitioners were workers of 2nd respondents from 1998 and the employer and employees relationship existed between the petitioners/workers and 2nd respondents contractors alone. The documents produced by the petitioners do not prove that they were employee of 1″ respondent. These documents also do not prove that employer and employee relationship existed between petitioners and management/1st respondent. So, this point is answered accordingly.
19. A perusal of the above order makes it clear that based on the oral and documentary evidences, the 1st respondent has categorically
come to the conclusion that the petitioners are not workmen of the 2nd respondent.
20. In the judgment in Steel Authority of India case, which was referred by the petitioners/workmen, it was held as follows:
“125……………
(5) On issuance of prohibition notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment of contract labour or otherwise, in an industrial dispute brought before it by any contract labour in regard to conditions of service, the industrial adjudicator will have to consider the question whether the contractor has been interposed either on the ground of having undertaken to produce any given result for the establishment or for supply of contract labour for work of the establishment under a genuine contract or is a mere ruse/camouflage to evade compliance of various beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workers of the benefit thereunder. If the contract is found to be not genuine but a mere camouflage, the so-called contract labour will have to be treated as employees of the principal employer who shall be directed to regularise the services of the contract labour in the concerned establishment subject to the conditions as may be specified by it for that purpose in the light of para 6 hereunder.
(6) If the contract is found to be genuine and prohibition notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act in respect of the concerned establishment has been issued by the appropriate Government, prohibiting employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work of any establishment and where in such process, operation or other work of the establishment the principal employer intends to employ regular workmen he shall give preference to the erstwhile contract labour, if otherwise found suitable and, if necessary, by relaxing the condition as to maximum age appropriately taking into consideration the age of the workers at the time of their initial employment by the contractor and also relaxing the condition as to academic qualifications other than technical qualifications.”
21. In the above citation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had dealt with the aspect of workers entitlement when the notification was issued under Section 10(1) of the CLRA. In this case, no such notification was issued, so as to bring the Company under CLRA and apply the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above
citation.
22. Further, in the judgment of Gujarat Electricity Board case, it has been held as follows:
“59. It is also not correct to say that to arrive at the finding as to whether the labour contracts are genuine or not, the Court or the industrial adjudicator cannot investigate the factors mentioned in Section 2 (a) to (d) of Section 10(2) of the Act. The explanation to Section 10(2) makes the decision of the appropriate Government final only on the question whether the process or operation or the work in question is of a perennial nature or not, and that too when a dispute arises with regard to the same. If no such question arises, the finding recorded by the Court or the Tribunal in that behalf is not ineffective or invalid. Further, in all such cases, the Tribunal is called upon to record a finding on the factors in question not for abolishing the contract but to find out whether the contract is sham or otherwise. The contract may be genuine even where all the said factors are present. What is prohibited by Section 10 is the abolition of the contract except by the appropriate Government, after taking into consideration the said factors, and not the recording of the finding on the basis of the said factors, that the contract is sham or bogus.”
23. As discussed above, this Court has already elaborately dealt with the aspect as to whether the Contract is sham and nominal. Based on the facts and the materials available on record, this Court is unable to arrive at any conclusion in favour of the petitioner by declaring the Contract as sham and nominal.
24. In the judgement of D.C.Deewan Mohideen Sahib case, it has been held as follows:
“121. It is in the light of these decisions that we have to decide whether the workmen who work under the so-called independent contractors in these cases are the workmen of the appel- lants. It has been found by the tribunal and this view has been confirmed by the appeal court that so-called independent contractors were mere agents or branch managers of the appellants. We see no reason to disagree with this view taken by the tribunal and confirmed by the appeal court on the facts of these cases. We are not unmindful in this connection of the view taken by the learned Single Judge when he held that on the agreements and the facts found the so-called intermediaries were independent contractors. We are however of opinion that the view taken by the appeal court in this connection is the right one. As the appeal court has rightly pointed out the
(1)[1957] S.C.R. 152.
(2) [1961] 3 S.C.R. 161.
(3) (1962) Supp 1. I S.C.R. 249.
(4) [1964] 1 S.C.R. 860.
so-called independent contractors were indigent persons who were in all respects under the control of the appellants. There is in our opinion little doubt that this system has been evolved to avoid regulations under the Factories Act. Further there is also no doubt from whatever terms of agreement are available on the record that the so-called independent contractors have really no independence at all. As the appeal court has pointed out they are impecunious persons who could hardly afford to have factories of their own. Some of them are even exemployees of the appellants. The contract is practically one sided in that the proprietor can at his choice supply the raw materials or refuse to do so, the so-called contractor having no right to insist upon the supply of raw materials to him. The so-called independent contractor is even bound not to employ more than nine persons in his so-called factory. The sale of raw materials to the so-called independent contractor and resale by him of the manufactured bidis is also a mere camouflage, the nature of which is apparent from the fact that the so- called contractor never paid for the materials. All that happens is that when the manufactured bidis are delivered by him to the appellants, amounts due for the socalled sale of raw materials is deducted from the so-called price fixed for the bidis. In effect all that happened is that the so- called independent contractor is supplied with tobacco and leaves and is paid certain amount-, for the wages of the workers employed and for his own trouble. We can therefore see no difficulty in holding that the so-called contractor is merely an employee or an agent of the appellants as held by the appeal court and as such employee or agent he employs workers to roll bidis on behalf of the appellants. The work is distributed between a number of :-so-called independent contractors who are told not to employ more than nine persons at one place to avoid regulations under the Factories Act. We are not however concerned with that aspect of the matter in the present appeals. But there can be no doubt that the workers employed by the socalled contractors are really the workmen of the appellants who are employed through their agents or servants whom they choose to call independent contractors.”
25. In the above judgment, they have examined the contracts and arrived at a conclusion that the workers are the workmen of the Company on the basis of the factual aspect of that case. However, based on the facts and circumstances of the present cases, this Court is unable to arrive at a conclusion in favour of the petitioner that the petitioners are the workmen of the Company under CLRA.
26. Further, in the judgment of Secretary, HSEB case, it has been held as follows:
20. It has to be kept in view that this is not a case in which it is found that there was any genuine contract labour system prevailing with the Board. If it was a genuine contract system, then obviously, it had to be abolished as per Section 10 of the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act after following the procedure laid down therein. However, on the facts of the present case, it was found by the Labour Court and as confirmed by the High Court that the so called contractor Kashmir Singh was a mere name lender and had procured labour for the Board from the open market. He was almost a broker or an agent of the Board for that purpose. The Labour Court also noted that the Management witness Shri A.K. Chaudhary also could not tell whether Shri Kahsmir Singh was a licensed contractor or not. That workmen had made a statement that Shri Kashmir Singh was not a licensed contractor. Under these circumstances, it has to be held that factually there was no genuine contract system prevailing at the relevant time wherein the Board could have acted as only the principal employer and Kashmir Singh as a licensed contractor employing labour on his own account. It is also pertinent to note that nothing was brought on record to indicate that even the Board at the relevant time, was registered as principal employer under the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act. Once the Board was not a principal employer and the so called contractor Kashmir Singh was not a licensed contractor under the Act, the inevitable conclusion that had to be reached was to the effect that the so called contract system was a mere camouflage, smoke and a screen and disguised in almost a transparent veil which could easily be pierced and the real contractual relationship between the Board, on the one hand, and the employees, on the other, could be clearly visualised.
27. As discussed above, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above case will not applicable for the present facts of the case.
28. In the order dated 09.07.2025 passed in W.P.(MD)Nos.4018 of 2017, etc. batch, this Court has already dealt with the aspect as to whether the Contract Labour would be entitled to avail benefits available under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, and the relevant portion of the said order reads as follows:
“12.2 Now, to decide the present issue, it would be apposite to extract the definition of “workman” as defined in the 1981 Act, which reads as follows:
2. Definitions.-
(4) “Workman” means any person employed in any industrial estabishment to do any skilled or unskilled, manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied [and includes a baldi workman]
but does not include any such person,
a) who is employed in the police service or as an
officer or other employee of a prison; or
b) who is employed mainly in managerial or
administrative capacity; or
c) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, [draws wages exceeding three thousand and five hundred rupees per mensem] or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature.
12.3 A reading of the above definition would show that the “workman” means any person employed in any industrial establishment to do any skilled or unskilled manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied.
12.4 The word “for hire or reward” means the service, which is being offered in exchange of payment, essentially means, you are paid to perform a task or provide a service. In other words, it means a person providing services and receiving a form of compensation whether as direct money or any other consideration for carrying out the activities.
12.5 The hiring shall be in the form of directhiring or indirect hiring. As far as direct hiring is concerned, the employer will engage the worker directly and they will maintain the records and pay the salary with PF, ESI and other contributions. As far as indirect hire is concerned, the employer will engage the workers through Contractors, in which case, the Contractor will maintain records and pay the salary along with other contributions.
12.6 As far as the present issue is concerned, to decide the same, it is immaterial to look into the aspect as to whether the said worker, who worked in the particular organization, was engaged directly by his employer or through contractor. Further, in order to fitin with the definition of “workman” under the 1981 Act, if a person worked in any industrial establishment as defined in the Act, the same would be sufficient to declare him as a “workman” of the said industrial establishment.
12.7 Thus, now, one more issue arises for consideration as to whether the TWAD Board is an industrial establishment as defined under the 1981 Act, since the definition of “workman” states that “any person employed in any industrial establishment”. At this juncture, it would be apposite to extract the definition of the word “industrial establishment”, which reads as follows:
“2(3) “ industrial establishment ” means—
(a) a factory as defined in clause (m) of Section 2 of the Factories Act, 1948 (Central Act LXIII of 1948) or any place which is deemed to be a factory under sub-section (2) of section 85 of that Act; or
(b) a plantation as defined in clause (f) of section
2 of the Plantations Labour Act, 1951 (Central Act
LXIX of 1951); or
(c) a motor transport undertaking as defined in clause (g) of section 2 of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 (Central Act 27 of 1961); or
(d) a beedi industrial premises as defined in clause (i) of section 2 of the Beedi and Cigar Workers (conditions of employment) Act, 1966. (Central Act 32 of 1966); or
(e) an establishment as defined in clause (6) of section 2 of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act, 1947 (Tamil Nadu Act XXXVI of 1947); or
(f) a catering establishment as defined in clause(1) of section 2 of the Tamil Nadu Catering Establishment Act, 1958.(Tamil Nadu Act XIII of 1958) ; or
(g) any other establishment which the Government may, by notification, declare to be an industrial establishment for the purpose of this Act;”
12.8 A reading of the above shows that Section 2(3)(a) of the 1981 Act defines the word “industrial establishment” as a factory as defined in clause (m) of Section 2 of the Factories Act, 1948 (Central Act LXIII of 1948). In such case, it would be apposite to extract the definition of the word “factory” as defined in Section 2(m) of the Factories Act, 1948, which reads as follows:
2(m) “factory” means any premises including the precincts thereof—
(i) whereon ten or more workers are working, or were working on any day of the preceding twelve months, and in any part of which a manufacturing process is being carried on with the aid of power, or is ordinarily so carried on, or
(ii) whereon twenty or more workers are working, or were working on any day of the preceding twelve months, and in any part of which a manufacturing process is being carried on without the aid of power, or is ordinarily so carried on,—
12.9 A reading of the above would make it clear that the word “factory” means any premises including the precincts thereof, whereon 10 or more workers are working, or were working on any day of the preceding twelve months, and in any part of which a manufacturing process is being carried on with the aid of power, or is ordinarily so carried on. Therefore, while defining the word “Factory” under the Factories Act, 1948, it is clear that there must be more than 10 workers working in the industrial establishment, whereby the manufacturing process should have been carried on. Both the words “manufacturing process” and “worker” have been defined in the Factories Act, 1948, and necessarily we have to look into the meaning of both words, so as to understand the full meaning of the word “Factory” in terms of the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948. The words “manufacturing process”has been defined in Section 2(k) of the Factories Act, 1948, and the same reads as follows:
(k) “manufacturing process” means any process for
(i) making, altering, repairing, ornamenting, finishing, packing, oiling, washing, cleaning, breaking up, demolishing, or otherwise treating or adapting any article or substance with a view to its use, sale, transport, delivery or disposal; or
(ii) pumping oil, water, sewage or any other substance; or
(iii) generating, transforming or transmitting power; or
(iv) composing types for printing, printing byletter press, lithography, photogravure or other similar process or book binding; or
(v) constructing, reconstructing, repairing, refitting, finishing or breaking up ships or vessels; r
(vi) preserving or storing any article in cold storage;
12.10 A reading of the above makes it clear that as per the provisions of Section 2(k)(ii) of the Factories Act, the word “manufacturing process” includes the process of pumping water, oil or any other substances. In the present case, all the workers were engaged as pump operator for water and sewerage in TWAD Board. In such case, the activities of the workers squarely covered under the definition of
“manufacturing process” as defined in Section 2(k) of the Factories Act, 1948. Therefore, the TWAD Board is an “industrial establishment” as defined in the Factories Act.
12.11 The word “worker” as defined under the Factories Act, 1948, is as follows:
2(l) “worker” means a person [employed, directly or by or through any agency (including a contractor) with or without the knowledge of the principal employer, whether for remuneration or not], in any manufacturing process, or in cleaning any part of the machinery or premises used for a manufacturing process, or in any other kind of work incidental to, or connected with, the manufacturing process, or the subject of the manufacturing process [but does not include any member of the armed forces of the Union]
12.12 A reading of the above definition makes it clear that the “worker” is a person, who is employed, directly or by or through any agency (including a contractor) with or without the knowledge of the principal employer, whether for remuneration or not, in any manufacturing process, or in cleaning any part of the machinery or premises used for a manufacturing process, or in any other kind of work incidental to, etc. Therefore, the definition of “worker” includes a person employed directly or through any contractor in any factory, i.e., the workers referred in the definition of Factories Act would refer both the workers, who are directly hired by an industrial establishment as well as the workers, who are indirectly hired and employed through any agency or contractor.
12.13 In Section 2(m) of the Factories Act, 1948, the word “Factory” has been defined as “any premises, where 10 or more workers worked in manufacturing process with the aid of power”. Further, the said “manufacturing process” referred in the definition of Factories Act includes pumping of oil, water, sewerage or any other substances. In the present case, the workers were carrying out the job of pumping the water and sewerage and hence, there is not doubt that the workers in this case were involved in manufacturing process as defined in the Factories Act. In such case, since the TWAD Board is a “Factory” as defined in Section 2(m) of the Factories Act, it would squarely fall within the meaning of “industrial establishment” as defined in the 1981 Act. That apart, the word “worker” is also defined in the Factories Act, which includes both the workers, who were worked directly or through any Agency (including Contractors). In the present case, the workers were worked for TWAD Board through Contractors, thus, it is crystal clear that the workers were engaged through Contractor to TWAD Board. Therefore, as discussed above, it is clear that TWAD Board is an “industrial establishment” as defined in Section 2(3)(a) of the 1981 Act.
12.14 On the other hand, the TWAD Board have referred the Shops and Establishment Act and would submit that the said Act would apply for the Government or TWAD Board. However, as per the definition of industrial establishment, as defined in Section 2(3)(a) of the 1981 Act, the TWAD Board squarely falls within the purview of “industrial establishment”.
12.15 Therefore, in the present case, since the workers have worked in the TWAD Board, which is an industrial establishment, they will be considered as “workers” within the meaning of definition of
Factories Act and also as the workman as defined in Section 2(4) of the 1981 Act. In such view of the matter, there is no difficulty in arriving at a conclusion that the workers are the “workman” as defined in the 1981 Act.
12.16 In 1981 Act, the word “workman” is defined as any person employed in any industrial establishment. In this case, the workers were worked in TWAD Board. The TWAD Board is an Industrial Establishment within the meaning of the 1981 Act, as discussed earlier.
12.17 In the result, the TWAD Board is an “Industrial Establishment” within the meaning of Section 2(3)(a) of the 1981 Act. The workers were worked in the said industrial establishment and hence, the workers are “workman” in terms of the definition of “workman” as defined in Section 2(4) of the 1981 Act.
13 to 14.3…………..
14.4 The definition of the word “workman” as defined in Contract Labours Act, 1970, is as follows:
“2(i) “workman” means any person employed in or in connection with the work of any establishment to do any skilled, semi-skilled or un-skilled manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied.”
14.5 From reading the above provision, it is clear that the word “workman” includes any person employed directly and through contract. As far as the Contract Labour Act is concerned, it was enacted only for the purpose of engaging the workers through contract and to safeguard their rights. Therefore, the said provision will apply to the extent of safeguard available under the Act to the workman, that too, it was enacted only for the employer and contractor for the purpose of registration of workers. In the present case, no such registration was made by the TWAD Board.
14.6 As far as the 1981 Act is concerned, if any workman worked for 480 days or more within a period of 2 years, they are entitled for permanent status. It is a separate right, which the workman is entitled for under the said 1981 Act, once they completed 480 days work in a period of 24 months, either directly or through contractor. Therefore, merely because a person was employed through a contractor under the Contract labour Act, one cannot assume that the Contract Labours Act alone would be applicable for the said person and other Acts will not apply. While defining the word workman/worker, all other labour welfare legislation have consciously included the word “either directly or indirectly through contractor, agency, etc”. The workman, who works as contract labourer, can enjoy all the benefits available for them under the Contract Labours Act upto certain period. Once if he/she qualified to get permanent status under 1981 Act, he/she would be considered as regular worker and thereafter, all the benefits, as regular workman, will be available for him/her also. In a nutshell, the contract labourers are entitled to get permanent status under the 1981 Act. When it was made clear that the TWAD
Board is an industrial establishment under the 1981 Act, the provisions of Section 3 of the Act, which pertains to the “Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act” will apply for the TWAD Board. Hence, in the present case, the 1981 Act will apply to the Workers.
15. Issue No.(iv):
iv) Whether the engagement of workers through contractors, under the Contract Labours Act, will be deprived of the benefit available under Section 3 of the 1981 Act for the purpose of conferment of permanent status?
15.1 To answer the issue, it would be apposite to extract Section 3 of the 1981 Act, which reads as follows:
“3.Conferment of permanent status to workmen.—
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force every workman who is in continuous service for a period of four hundred and eighty days in a period of twenty four calendar months in an industrial establishment shall be made permanent.
(2) A workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike, which is not illegal, or a lock-out [***] or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman.
Explanation I.– For the purposes of computing the continuous service referred to in sub-sections (1) and (2), a workman shall be deemed to be continuous service during the days on which — ;
(i) he has been laid off under an agreement or as permitted by standing orders made under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (Central Act XX of 1946) or under any other law applicable to the industrial establishment ;
(ii) he has been on leave with full wages, earnedin the previous years;
(iii) he has been absent due to temporary disablement caused by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment ; and
(iv) in the case of a female, she has been on maternity leave ; so, however, that the total period of such maternity leave does not exceed twelve weeks.
Explanation II. – For the purposes of this section, ‘law’ includes any award, agreement, settlement, instrument or contract of service whether made before or after the commencement of this Act.”
15.2 A reading of the above Section, would make it clear that notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, every workman who is in continuous service for a period of 480 days in a period of 24 calendar months in an industrial establishment shall be made permanent. Therefore, it is immaterial to consider any other law contains in any other manner, whether it is special law or general law. Thus, still the workers are entitled for the purpose of conferment of permanent status under the 1981 Act.
15.3 Further, in Explanation 2 of the above provision, the word “law” has been explained as “law’ includes any award, agreement, settlement, instrument or contract of service whether made before or after the commencement of this Act.”
15.4 Even assuming if any contract, contrary to the 1981 Act, was entered between the employer and the contractor for engaging workers in TWAD Board, either before or after the commencement of the 1981 Act, the said contract will not override the 1981 Act, due to non-obstante clause available in Section 3(1) of the 1981 Act. Therefore, in the present case, even if any agreement/contract is entered for engaging the workers in the industrial establishment, i.e., TWAD Board, through contractor, the said agreement/contract will not override the provisions of Section 3 of the 1981 Act. Thus, every workman is entitled for the conferment of permanent status irrespective of any contract of employment or under any law, either Special or General Law, either before or subsequent to the enactment of 1981 Act. As on date, this provision holds good, since the 1981 Act was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu vs. Nellai Cotton Mills reported in 1990 SCC (2) 518. Thus, engagement of contract labour through contractors will no way deprive the workers’ right to get conferment of permanent status under the 1981 Act.”
29. A perusal of the above order would make it clear like cloudless sky that to avail the benefit under the 1981 Act, it is immaterial to consider the aspect as to whether a person is direct workman or indirect workman of the Company. Ultimately, if a workman had worked for a period of 480 days out of 24 months, either directly or indirectly through contractors with the Company, the entitlement of the said workman under the 1981 Act will automatically be crystallized. In the case on hand, the petitioners have worked with the Company for a period of more than 7 years, which is more than the minimum period as prescribed under 1981
Act.
30. Further, the petitioners have to be considered as workmen worked in an industrial establishment, since the nature of work performed by them, such as mechanical, tinkering, welding, painting, carpentry, electrical etc., would squarely come under the definition of “manufacturing process” as defined in the Factories Act, 1948, which had been carried out in the 2nd respondent-”industrial establishment” as defined in Section 2(3) of the 1981 Act.
31. However, in this case, no claim for permanency was made before the Labour Court. The claim of the petitioners was only to declare them as the employees of the Company.
32. As discussed above, even though the petitioners are having certain rights not only under the CLRA but also as per other Laws enacted by the Parliament, it would not be appropriate to pass any orders for permanency, at this stage, i.e., after a period of 2 decades, that too, in the absence of any such plea.
33. In the case on hand, admittedly, the workmen have been waiting for their rights for 2 decades. There was no dispute on the aspect that at the time of oral termination, the petitioners had completed their 7 years of service with the Company.
34. Of course the petitioners, who were worked as the Contract Labours, are entitled for the benefits available under the CLRA. Merely, because a person, working under the CLRA, would not dis-entitle from establishing and availing his/her legal entitlement under the other Labour Legislations, viz., the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981, etc.
35. As far as the award of the Labour Court is concerned, it had concluded that the petitioners are not the workmen of the Company.
However, the said award was passed in the context of CLRA by the Labour Court. Thus, as far as CLRA is concerned, the petitioners are not workmen of the Company.
36. As far as the other Statutes are concerned, the definition of the word “workman/worker” includes a person, who worked for hire, which means both direct or indirect hiring. If a workman, who worked directly with the company, then the hiring of the said workman amounts to direct hiring by the company. On the other hand, if any work was carried out through a contractor or agency, it would amount to indirect hire. Thus, if a person performed any work with the company, either by virtue of direct hire or indirect hire, he/she would be considered as workman/worker of the said Company under the respective Labour Legislations.
37. In the result, the petitioners are not the workmen of the Company under the provisions of CLRA, but they are the workmen of the Company under other Statutes.
38. Therefore, this Court, safely, in order to give quietus to the issue, direct both the company as well as the respondents 3 to 19/Contractors to jointly pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- directly to each and
every workman over and above the compensation as ordered by the 1st respondent vide the impugned award dated 22.10.2012, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the event if there is any refusal on the part of any of the workman to receive the said compensation, the same shall be deposited to the credit of the respective Industrial Dispute petitions, on the file of the Labour Court, in which case, the Labour Court is directed to invest the said amount in an interest bearing Fixed Deposit in the name of respective workmen until its withdrawal.
39. With the above, these writ petitions are disposed of. No costs.
Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
20.08.2025
NCC:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order nsa
To
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli
2.The Management of M/s.Tractors and Farm Equipment Ltd.,
K.Patti Plant, Kalladipatti Post,
Nilakkottai Circle, Dindugul District.
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY , J.
nsa

W.P.(MD)Nos.10133 of 2013, etc. (Batch)
20.08.2025