IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 29.01.2009 Coram The Honourable Mrs.Justice PRABHA SRIDEVAN and The Honourable Mr.Justice K.K.SASIDHARAN W.A.No. 1612 of 2007 Management of Subramaniya Siva Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd Harur, Harur Taluk Dharmapuri District ...Appellant / 2nd Respondent -vs- 1. The Presiding Officer Labour Court, Vellore 2. T.Murugesan 3. G.Settu 4. R.Rajamanickam 5. P.Murugesan 6. C.Sekar 7. P.Mathaiyan 8. P.Nadumathiyan 9. J.Karunakaran 10. K.Venkatesan 11. K.Ravisankar 12. C.Rajagopal 13.V.Sivakumar 14. A.Manivannan 15.A.Murugan 16. C.Kaliappan 17. K.Lakshmanar 18. A.Raji 19. R.Krishnan 20. R. Selvaraj 21.M.Kamal Abdul Nazar 22. K.Ramesh 23. A. Tamilarasan 24. C.Murugan 25. Thavamani 26. S.Kuppan https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 27. V.Natarajan 28. P. Vediyappan 29. B.Manoharan 30. P.Thavamani 31. G.Raman 32. A.Elanthamizh 33. M.Palani 34. P.Chinnadurai 35. P.Sivaperumal 36. C.Vanithan 37. K. Iyappan 38. R.Mathu 39. N.Veeramani 40. C. Sethuraman 41. M.Anisha Basha 42. M. Raja 43. V.Palanisamy 44. K. Chinnaraji 45. T. Chinnathambi 46. A. Balamurugan 47. P. Subramani 48. T.Siva 49. P. Chinnakannu 50. P. Raja 51. S.Rajamani 52. M. Chandran 53. P. Arjunan 54. M.Rajaram 55. S.Rameshkumar 56. A. Natarajan 57. A. Vaiyapuri 58. R. Govindan 59. M. Venkatesan 60. R.Rajagopal 61. C.Murugesan 62. R.Selvam 63. R. Paneerselvam 64. G. Selvam 65. V. Perumal 66. C. Subramani 67. K. Murugan 68. R. Ramaligam 69. N. Venkatachalam 70. P.Natarajan 71. N. Nethaji 72. P.Kumar 73. S. Govindaraj 74. P.Mani 75. S. Pachaiyappan https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 76. P.Munusamy 77. T.Rajendran 78. C.Krishnan 79. P. Venkatesan 80. N.Arumugam 81. P.Murugan 82. G.Sampath 83. G.Venkatesan 84. C. Sevathan 85. A.Susi 86. R.Logan 87. P.Jadaiyan 88. S. Loganathan 89. K.Venkatachalam 90. V. Govindan 91. C.Somu 92. R. Perumal 93. A.Ramasamy 94. M. Devendran 95. D.Murgan 96. P.Devaraj 97. C.Kaliappan 98. P.Mohan 99. G.Murugan 100.C.Vadivel 101.G.Krishnamurthy 102. R.Jadaiyand 103.K.Murugan 104. K.Ganesan 105.R. Madheswaran 106.M.Palani 107.K.Dhandapani 108. G.Venkatesan 109. P.Krishnamurthy 110.C.Sivakumar 111.G.Sethu 112.P.Mathu 113.R.Gopu 114.A.Thangasamy 115.K.Rajendran 116.R.Adhimoolam 117. G.Govindaraj 118. P.Raji 119.P.Selvam 120.P.Rajamanickam 121.P.Shanmugam 122.A.Seenu 123.S.Shanmugam 124.K.Annamalai https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 125.M.Saravanan 126.G.Sampath 127.P.Ramanathan 128.K.M.Krishnamurthy 129.C.Arumugam 130.K.Saravanan 131.V.Selvam 132.R. Chinnaraj 133.S.Sakthi 134.G.Selvan 135.C.Ramasundaram 136.C.Murugan 137.R.Elumalai 138. V.Govidaraj 139.A.Kumar 140.P.Palanisamy 141.K.Sundaraiyar ...Respondents Writ appeal against the order made in WP.No.2086 of 1998 dated 3.8.2007, calling for the records relating to the Common Award passed by the first respondent, dated 14.11.1996 in I.D.Nos.199, 200, 202 to 223, 225 to 299, 361 to 391, 393, 395, 396, 399 to 404 and 406 of 1995, dismissing all the Industrial Disputes and quash the same and direct the second respondent to reinstate all the petitioners herein, with continuity of service and backwages and all other benefits, with costs. For Appellant : Mr.R.Parthiban For Respondents: Mr.R.Yashod Vardhan, Senior Counsel for Mr.N.Damodaran for RR 3,6,9, 12, 13, 18, 20,21, 24 25, 30, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 43 47, 49, 52, 58, 62, 63, 68 to 72, 75 to 77, 87, 92, 93, 95, 97, 98, 101, 115, 116, 119, 121, 125, 128, 129, 134 and 139 JUDGMENT (The judgment of the Court was made by PRABHA SRIDEVAN,J) The Management of the Sugar Mills has filed this writ appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge setting aside the Labour Court award and giving directions for inclusion of the names of the writ petitioners in the list of season workers (casuals). https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. Industrial Disputes were raised under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act by the employees of the appellant sugar mills. They claimed that they had worked more than 240 days in every year of service in the past. According to them, they have signed in the wages register regularly and they are equal to other employees of the mills. The employees denied that there were any registered contractors in the appellant mill during the period of service. The appellant of course took a stand that the employees were all contract labourers and they had no privity of contract with the employees. According to them, they were supplied by the contractors periodically. The Labour Court, Vellore accepted the case of the appellant that they were workmen under the contract labourers and not regular workmen of the appellant and therefore, rejected the claim of regularisation, reinstatement and payment of backwages. Aggrieved by this, the workmen moved this Court. 3. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the case of the appellant that the workmen were all contract labourers cannot be accepted. The alleged contractors were not registered as a contractors under the appellant sugar mill as per the provisions of the Contract Labour (Abolition and Regulation) Act, 1970 nor was the appellant the principal employer under the said Act. Learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that no evidence was placed before the Labour Court to support the case of the appellant that the alleged contractors were registered contractors. Learned single Judge also held that the work orders alleged to have been issued by these contractors cannot form the basis for the conclusion that the workmen were contract labourers. Therefore, the learned Judge was pleased to eschew the theory of the contract employment and held that the petitioners had proved that they were all engaged during the crushing season in the years 1992-93 for a period of 98 days and 1993-94 for a period of 89 days. Therefore, the writ petition was disposed of directing the appellant mill to include the names of the workmen in the list of season workers ( casuals) at the end of the list and provide them with an opportunity for such engagement during the crushing season on rotational basis. The claim for reinstatement, backwages and other attendant benefits was not granted. Against this, the workmen did not file any appeal, but the Management of the sugar mill chose to file the above appeal. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is a categoric finding by the Labour Court that the workmen were engaged only through the contracts and they were contract labourers and such finding of fact cannot be easily interefered https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ with. He also submitted that in a decision rendered in DENA NATH AND OTHERS v. NATIONAL FERTILIZERS LIMITED AND OTHERS - 1992 1 LLJ page 289, the Supreme Court held that merely because contractor or the employer had violated any provision of the Act or the rules, that will not justify the issuance of a mandamus for deeming the contract labour as having become the employees of the principal employer. Learned counsel also submitted that DENA NATH case has been followed in STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED v. NATIONAL UNION WATERFRONT WORKERS AND ORS – 2001 7 SCC 1 which over ruled AIR INDIA STATUTORY CORPORATION AND OTHERS v. UNITED LABOUR UNION AND OTHERS – 1997 9 SCC 377. Hence, the ratio in 1992 I LLJ 289 governs the field. Learned counsel submitted that when the workmen themselves had not claimed that they were seasonal workers 'casual' , this relief could not have been granted. According to the learned counsel, there are four kinds of workers. (1). Permanent, (2). Permanent and seasonal workers, (3). Non permanent and Seasonal workers or casuals and (4). Contract Labourers. The workmen come under the last category as correctly found by the Labour Court. Therefore, he prayed that the order of the learned Single Judge be set aside. 5. Learned senior counsel appearing for workmen submitted that in the affidavit, the workmen had specifically taken the stand that the Se.Kandappan Co-operative Sugar Mill Coolie Thozhilalargal Sangam, and P.Natarajan, its President were all the creations of the management and that the said Natarajan himself was a worker and that the management had created records to show as if, the workmen were contract labourer of the aforesaid sangam. There is no counter to that and in fact even in the award of the Labour Court it is seen that contractor Natarajan had filed I.D.No. 269/95 claiming that he is worker and that his son Nethaji, who is also a worker, had filed I.D.No. 270/95. Therefore, without any basis, the Labour Court had come to the conclusion that they were contract labourers. 6. Though it is true that the finding of fact cannot be lightly disturbed, when the factual finding is arrived at by mis- construction of evidence or without the basis of any evidence, then our power under Article 226 of the Constitution is not restricted. That is what the learned single Judge has done. The learned Single Judge has followed the directions given by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in MORINDA CO-OP. SUGAR MILLS LTD v. RAM KRISHNA - 1995 (ii) LLN 1129 which is extracted in the order itself and also followed the decision reported in ANIL BAPURAO KANASE v. KRISHNA SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD - 1997 (10) SCC 599 rendered by three Judge Bench, wherein the Supreme Court held that, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "..... In MORINDIA CO-OP. SUGAR MILLS LTD v. RAM KRISHNA in para 3, this Court has dealt with engagement of the seasonal workman in sugarcane crushing; in para 4, it is stated that it was not a case of retrenchment of the workman, but of closure of the factory after the crushing season was over. Accordingly, in para 5, it was held that it is not "retrenchment" within the meaning of Section 2 (oo) of the Act. As a consequence the appellant is not entitled to retrenchment as per clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) of the Act. Since the present work is seasonal business, the principles of the Act have no application. However, this Court has directed that the respondent management should maintain a register and engage the workmen when the season starts in the succeeding years in the order of seniority. Until all the employees whose names appear in the list are engaged in addition to the employees who are already working, the management should not got in for fresh engagement of new workmen. It would be incumbent upon the respondent management to adopt such procedure as is enumerated above. " 7. This has also been followed by our Court in P.S.M. EMP. UNION v. PERAMBALUR SUGAR MILLS, LTD. - 2002 2 LLN 345, wherein it is held as follows:- "Taking note of the grievance expressed by the casual workers, we hereby direct the management, Perambalur Sugar Mills, to maintain register and engage the workmen when the season starts in the succeeding years in the order of seniority. Only the employees whose names appear in the list have to be engaged in addition to the employees who are already working. The management should not go in for fresh engagement of new workmen. To put it clear, the sugar mills is directed to maintain a register for all the workmen engaged during the seasons and when the new season starts, the sugar mills should make a publication in local Tamil Dailies in the neighbouring places in which the workmen normally live and if they would report for duty, the sugar mills would engage them in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ accordance with seniority and exigency of work. Though Sri Vijay Narayan, learned counsel for the sugar mills has stated that this procedure is being followed by them in order to safeguard the interests of the casual workers, we made this observation. With these observations, both the writ appeal and writ petition are dismissed. No costs. " 8. The workman claimed a larger relief of reinstatement, backwages etc. The learned Single Judge found that they were only entitled to a smaller relief and we see nothing wrong in that. There is factual basis to show the number of days the workers had worked. So, the following directions were given, "With that view, the impugned common award of the first respondent Labour Court is set aside and the same is replaced by this order. The second respondent- Sugar Mills is directed to include the names of the petitioners in the list of seasonal workers (casuals) at the end of the list and provide them with an opportunity for such engagement during the crushing season on rotational basis as is being offered to other similarly placed workers. The second respondent – Sugar Mills is directed to carry out the above said exercise in the next crushing season of 2007- 2008 and shall continue to do so depending upon the exigency of the situation warranting their engagement." 9. We do not see how the appellant can be aggrieved by this, especially when the workmen have not been granted reinstatement, backwages. We are of the opinion that the appeal has been filed without any justification. 10. In these circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge. The writ appeal is dismissed with costs. Bg 29.1.2009 This Appeal having been posted today ie., on Wednesday, the 25th day of February 2009 under the caption for 'Being Mentioned' and upon perusing the order of this Court dated 29.1.2009 and made herein, and in the presence of the aforesaid advocates, the Court made the following order:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (The order of the Court was made by PRABHA SRIDEVAN,J) This matter has been placed before this Court for being mentioned since the Registry pointed out that as per rules in the matter that arises under Article 226 of the constitution of India, the Court has to mention the quantum of costs. Accordingly, the costs shall be Rs.500/-. bg 25.2.2009 Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar To The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Vellore. + 1 cc to Mr. N. Damodaran, Advocate SR No.4551 + 1 cc to Mr. R. Parthiban, Advocate SR No.7078 W.A.No.1612 of 2007 KA(CO) SR/3.3.2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/