MANAGEMENT TAMILNADU KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD Vs. WORKMEN REP BY SECRETARY, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE GENERAL WORKERS UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this intra Court Appeal is to the order of the learned Single Judge dated 04.01.2016 made in WP No.1160 of 2009, in and by which, the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellant seeking to quash the order of the Principal Labour Court, Chennai, made in ID No.489 of 2004 directing conferment of permanent status on the workmen, who are employed as carpenters in the Carpentry Division of the appellant.

(2.) The respondent Union had raised an Industrial Dispute seeking conferment of permanent status for 20 workmen under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) 1981 Act, (hereinafter referred to as "the 1981 Act"), who were employed as carpenters and polishers by the appellant Board, claiming that they had worked for 480 days in two calendar years continuously. Since the attempted Conciliation failed, the matter was referred to the Labour Court and the same was taken on file, as Industrial Dispute No. 489 of 2004. Before the Labour Court, the Union had contended that the workmen had been working in the Carpentry Division of the Appellant Board for more than 15 years for the purposes of manufacturing and repairing furniture of the Government and Semi Government Organisations. These workmen were paid wages on piece rate basis. Though they were continuously employed for more than 15 years, the Management did not regularise their services and rejected their claim for regularisation and other benefits, on the sole ground that they are only working on piece rate basis and not as contract labourers. It is also the complaint of the workmen that when the workmen demanded regularisation and other service benefits, the Management denied work to them and adopted unfair labour practice. However, after repeated representations, the Management had given the benefits of the Employees Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance Act to these workmen. Claiming that the action of the Management in not regularizing/conferring permanent status on these workmen amounted to unfair labour practice, the Union sought for permanent status for all these employees.

(3.) The appellant Management resisted the claim contending that the workmen were engaged only under works contract to do a particular job. The works were entrusted to the contractors, namely experienced carpenters, who inturn engaged the workmen under their supervision on piece rate basis. Therefore, according to the Management, there was no Master and Servant relationship between the appellant Management and the 19 workmen, whose cause is sought to be espoused by the union. It is also claimed that the conferment of permanent status has to be decided by the statutory Authority constituted under the 1981 Act, and hence the Labour Court do not have jurisdiction.