Madras High Court· 11 September 2026
Can a relief of permanent status never sought by the workmen before the Labour Court be granted by the Writ Court?
Management of Tractor and Fa v. M.Saravanan
WA(MD).2864/2025 · 2026:MHC:3761 · W.A.(MD)No.2864 of 2025
Coram: Justice C.V.Karthikeyan · Justice R.Sakthivel
Answer
A relief of permanent status never sought by the workmen before the Labour Court cannot be granted by the Writ Court.
No. A relief of permanent status never sought by the workmen before the Labour Court cannot be granted by the Writ Court. The dispute raised was only whether the workmen were employees of the management or of the contractor. The Single Judge, having upheld the genuineness of the contract, deviated to the Tamil Nadu permanent status legislation on the strength of an order in an unconnected batch, which was wholly irrelevant and was not even argued by the workmen.
Headnote
Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 — S.10(1) — Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — S.2-A — Contract labour — Employer-employee relationship with the principal employer — Genuine labour contract — Burden of proof — Adverse inference — Relief not sought — Permanent status —
Contract labour — Genuine contract — Principal employer —
Held: Where both the principal employer and the contractor are registered under the Contract Labour Act, no prohibition notification under s.10(1) has issued and the labour contract is genuine and neither sham nor nominal, the workmen are employees of the contractor and of none other. Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. v. Ramcharan, followed; SAIL v. National Union Waterfront Workers, distinguished. (¶50, 62, 75, 82)
Industrial law — Burden of proof — Adverse inference —
Held further: The burden of proving an employer-employee relationship lies on the person who sets up that plea. An adverse inference under s.114(g) of the Evidence Act for non-production cannot be drawn where no finding is rendered that the documents are required and no notice to produce under Or.XII r.8 CPC was issued. Workmen of Nilgiri Coop. Marketing Society, followed. (¶65, 66, 73, 76, 77)
Writ jurisdiction — Relief never sought —
Held further: The learned Single Judge could not declare the workmen permanent or fasten joint compensation on the principal employer on a relief never sought before the Labour Court. Management's appeals allowed; workmen's appeals dismissed. (¶79, 80, 81, 83, 84)
Headnote
You've used your free headnotes this month
The answer above and the Court's own paragraphs stay free. LexStreak's full headnote on this judgment needs an account — a free one opens it again.
Create my free accountIn the Court's own words
Paragraph 79The learned Single Judge, after holding that the contract between the management and the contractor was neither sham nor nominal and was actually genuine and further holding that the workmen were employees under the contractors, proceeded to examine whether the workmen can be declared as permanent workmen. This relief was never sought by the workmen before the Labour Court. They never claim the status of permanency. They only claimed that they were employees of TAFE. We hold that the learned Single Judge had misdirected himself and had ventured far away from the issue on hand. He had probably been swayed by his own earlier findings in a judgment in an unrelated matter wherein the facts and even the cause title had not been disclosed or reflected in the order. There is no justification in placing reliance on an unknown order and passing an order in the instant case. The facts of the earlier Writ Petition are not known. The facts have not been disclosed. The learned Senior Counsels/Counsels have not been given any opportunity to putforth their arguments on that particular issue and finding rendered by the learned Single Judge. We hold that the learned Single Judge had deviated far away without any valid reason to hold that the workmen deserve to be granted the status of permanent workmen and therefore, they were employees of TAFE. This was never the case of the workmen themselves.
Paragraph 80The dispute raised before the Labour Court was that they were workmen under TAFE and not under the contractor. This was the dispute which had to be resolved. While determining this issue, when the management put up a defence that there was a contract between them and the contractor, it has to be examined whether such contract was genuine or sham and nominal. It had been consistently held by both the Labour Court and by the learned Single Judge that it was genuine and it was neither sham nor nominal. Once that fact had been established, then it automatically follows that the workmen were employed only by the contractors and not by the management. We hold that the learned Single judge had taken upon himself the specious task of presenting a case on behalf of the workmen nor which was neither sought by the workmen nor called to be addressed. A dispute whether the workmen were permanent or not was never raised. It is also to be noted that no notification has been issued as required under Section 10(1) of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970.
Paragraph 81We hold that the further discussions regarding the provisions under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981, were wholly irrelevant to the facts of the case. Even before us, the learned Counsel for the workmen had not advanced this line of argument. He concentrated only on establishing that the workmen were directly employed by TAFE and by none else. It is for this reason that he argued on the principle of integration.
Acts & Sections
Section 10(1) Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970Section 114(g) Indian Evidence Act, 1872Order XII Rule 8 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.
Read the full text of Management of Tractor and Fa v. M.Saravanan — and get the Madras High Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.
Create my free accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
Open the full judgment →