WORKMAN OF BEST AND CROMPTON INDUSTRIES, LTD. (BY GENERAL SECRETARY, SOCIALIST WORKS UNION, MADRAS) Vs. BEST AND CROMPTON ENGINEERING LTD. AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is directed against the judgment of Mr. Justice Padmanabhan made in Writ Petition No. 4304 of 1981. The 1st respondent in this appeal came forward with the said writ petition to quash the award passed by the 2nd respondent in I.D. No. 97 of 1979 directing reinstatement of 75 workmen whose services were not requisitioned on and after 16th Oct., 1978 by the management (1st respondent therein) on the ground that these workers are not their workmen but were only contractor labour provided by the licenced contractor, the 4th respondent herein. The 2nd respondent (Presiding Officer, 2nd Additional Labour Court, Madras) rejected the stand taken by the management, but upheld the contention of the workmen that the 4th respondent herein was not a labour contractor for the management, that the 4th respondent was a mere name-lender and did not hold any requisite licence under The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Ultimately, on such finding, the 2nd respondent directed reinstatement of these 75 workmen with back wages and other attendant benefits. It is this order of the 2nd respondent that was sought to be quashed in W.P. No. 4304 of 1981. In the view of the learned Judge of this Court whose order is appealed against, the conclusion of the Labour Court that the 4th respondent was not really a labour contractor, but was merely acting as a tool in the hands of the management, is not supported either by the pleadings of the parties or by any evidence. According to the learned Judge, there is absolutely nothing to displace the weighty documentary evidence in favour of the management and therefore, he was compelled, to characterise the finding rendered by the Labour Court to the contrary as not only unsupported by any evidence, but also perverse, and to hold the same vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the records. In view of his above conclusion on merits, the learned Judge did not examine the question whether the industrial dispute has been properly raised and whether the Labour Court has jurisdiction to entertain the dispute, as it was unnecessary for him.

(2.) The contentions of Mr. Fenn Walter advanced on behalf of these 75 workmen are two fold : The first is that on the facts in this case, there is no difficulty in holding that an industrial dispute did arise so as to enable the Government to refer the dispute to the 2nd respondent herein. The other contention is that the learned Judge erred in re-appraising the evidence and substituting his own finding in the place of those rendered by the 2nd respondent, as such a course is not permissible under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel would submit that even on the materials before the Labour Court if two views are possible; yet this Court shall not interfere with the finding rendered by the Labour Court. According to the learned counsel, the learned Judge was not right in his conclusion that the finding rendered by the Labour Court is perverse or not not supported by evidence and pleadings.

(3.) It is needless to state that Mr. M.R. Narayanaswamy, learned senior counsel for the contesting 1st respondent argued to the contrary and sought to support the order of the learned Judge.