Workmen must establish foundational facts of direct employment and perennial work nature to sustain industrial dispute claims.

The Petitioner Union, representing marine vessel crews, claimed its members were directly employed by the Inland Waterways Authority of India (IWAI) on a contingency basis for perennial work

They alleged that from 2007 onwards, while remaining under IWAI’s control, their wages were routed through a society and later through private contractors (M/s A C Roy and Co and M/s Chinar Shipping), which they characterized as a "paper arrangement" to deny service benefits

Following failed conciliation, the matter was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT), Guwahati, in Ref. Case No. 02/2016

The CGIT passed an Award on 06.02.2018, holding that the workers were not direct employees of IWAI and were not entitled to relief

The Petitioner challenged this Award via the present writ petition.

1. Whether the CGIT exceeded its jurisdiction by going beyond the terms of reference regarding the nature of the workers' engagement

2. Whether the management was justified in engaging marine vessel crews on a casual/contractual basis for 89-day spells for work alleged to be of a perennial nature

3. Whether the members of the Petitioner Union were direct employees of IWAI or employees of independent contractors

The Court applied the fundamental principle of the burden of proof in industrial disputes, holding that the party asserting a fact (the existence of an employer-employee relationship) must prove it through admissible evidence

It also considered the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act (CLRA), noting that in the absence of a government notification prohibiting contract labour in a specific industry, engagement through contractors is not inherently illegal

The "lifting of the veil" doctrine was referenced as a tool to determine if a contract is a mere "sham" or "paper arrangement," provided foundational facts are first established by the claimants

The Court scrutinized the evidence provided by the Union’s witness, Jiten Deka, which lacked any documentary proof (such as appointment letters or salary slips) to establish direct employment by IWAI

The Court reasoned that the "foundational facts"—that the work was perennial and the employment was direct—must be proven by the workmen before the onus shifts to the management

Since the Union failed to show that dredging and vessel manning were perennial or that the contract system was a sham, the CGIT's refusal to lift the corporate veil was justified

The Court found that the CGIT acted within its jurisdiction because answering the reference naturally required determining the legal status of the workers' employment

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the CGIT’s Award

The Court concluded that the Tribunal’s findings were not perverse and that the intermittent 89-day engagements occurred during transitional tender periods between contractors

No relief was granted