Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Originally, the workmen concerned were employed to carry out various works of the Board and they were treated as contract workers for the purpose of denying the regular benefits. They were orally terminated from service of Board between the years 1995 and 1997. The contractual nature of the employment was only a sham and nominal and the Board was neither the principal employer recognized by the Contract Labour (Regularisation and Abolition) Act, 1970, nor the middlemen engaged, designated as contractors were registered contractors under the said Act. All the workers completed https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis  W.A.Nos.1696 of 2021, etc., batch their work continuously for nearly 240 days in a year and 480 days in 24 calendar months and they were not granted permanency under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981, (hereinafter referred as 'the Act 1981'). Due to various disputes raised by the labourers engaged by the Board, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has appointed Justice Khalid Commission, to identify several thousands of employees, employed on contractual basis in order to absorb them as regular employees in the Board. After identification, several thousands of employees were brought into the regular services of the Board in the year 1999. The Board proceedings were also issued for the benefit of employees to accommodate them as regular employees.

21. It is contended by the learned counsel for the Management that, as https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis  W.A.Nos.1696 of 2021, etc., batch per the Board proceedings issued by them, the respondents are not entitled for absorption. Since, they were not in employment as on 01.05.1999, which is the relevant period. The Labour Court has failed to consider the scheme prescribed under the Board proceedings. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation vs. Krishnan Gopal and Others reported in 2020 (2) LLN 17 (SC), it is reiterated that, at the time of absorption and regularisation, the contract workers shall be in employment and this absorption and regularisation shall be done only as per the terms of the scheme. The learned counsel for the Management would further submit that the supervision of the contract labour by the principal employer was inevitable and the supervision of the contract employer alone which is not the ground of order of absorption. He also relied on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Balwant Rai Saluja vs. Air India Limited [2014 (9) SCC 407] and contended that no materials placed on record to show that the contract labour system was sham and nominal.

27. Similarly, the petitioner in I.D.No.62 of 2003, namely Selvi, issued with Service Certificate issued by the Junior Engineer of Kadamparai Power Station, dated 25.07.1999. She had worked as a Sweeper of Sub Division Office from March-1995 till September 1996. Ex.W3 related to one K.Nagamani, who is the petitioner in I.D.No.63 of 2003, engaged as a contract worker from the year 1989 to 1995. Ex.W4 is the another Certificate related to A.Geetha, petitioner in l.D.No.64 of 2003, wherein, it is certified that the said Geetha was worked from the Month of August-1993 to January- 1995. Ex.W5 was issued in favour of Thirumoorthy, petitioner in I.D.No.65 of 2003, wherein, it is certified that the said Thirumoorthy was worked from 05.10.1994 to 28.04.1995. Ex.W6 was issued in favour of S.Ramesh, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis  W.A.Nos.1696 of 2021, etc., batch petitioner in I.D.No.66 of 2003, wherein, it is recorded that he was worked as a contract labourer from July-1994 to 25.03.1995 and again from 06.07.1995 to 03.03.1997 at Kadamparai electrical line.

28.1. Similarly in I.D.Nos.502/2004 to 508/2004, Service Records and Conduct Certificates of the workmen were marked and those documentary https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis  W.A.Nos.1696 of 2021, etc., batch proof have not been disputed by the Board.

29. After discussing the counter evidence adduced by the Management, the Labour Court has given a finding that Service Certificates were issued by the officers of the Board and those documents could not be brushed aside on the ground that those documents are false Certificates. Further, there is no evidence produced on behalf of the Management that those documents were false certificates. Since there was no quarrel that these certificates were issued by the Officials of the Board. Hence, the Labour Court has accepted the case of the workmen that they were engaged as contract workmen in various periods and the contention that they were not engaged by the Management is not sustainable. It is also further elicited from the evidence of the Management Witnesses that for absorbing the contract workers as per the scheme framed by Justice Khalid Commission, the similar certificates issued by the officers of the Board have been accepted and based on the those certificates, the contract labourers were also absorbed. Under the said circumstances, the Labour Court has held that those documents have to be accepted, and the Board is not entitled to claim those documents as false certificates.