ORDER : D.Bharatha Chakravarthy, J. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the award of the Prinipal Labour Court, Vellore, dated 27.12.2021 made in I.D.No.241 of 2009. By the said award, the reference that was made by the Government of Tamil Nadu vide G.O.D.No.672, dated 11.12.2009 was answered in favour of the workmen stating that the management should make the 11 workmen, involved in the dispute, as permanent and grant them monetary and other benefits. Aggrieved by the same, the management is before this Court. 2. The case of the workmen is that the 11 workmen, involved in the dispute are N.Sundaramurthy, V.Shankar, G.Pichandi, B.Ravichandiran, M.Manogaran, M.Annadurai, V.Vaikudhan @ Mani, V.Ekambaram, S.Kesavel, K.Lazar and K.Murthy. They worked in the management from the year 1983 onwards when it was Pattukottai Azhagiri Transport Corporation. They are casual labourers. They were working as helpers. In the year 1983, they were paid Rs.5/- per day; in the year 1986, it is increased to Rs.6/-; Rs.9/- in the year 1987; Rs.12/- in the year 1988 and Rs.18/- in the year 1989. The duties which are assigned to them are to work in mobile lorry which carry materials to one depot to another and dispensing the spare parts in other materials. 3. The officials, under whom they worked, are also mentioned in the Claim Petition. Even though they had put in 17 years of service, they were not regularised. One Natesan, who was the co-worker, had filed W.P.No.11145 of 1997 on his termination and he was reinstated by the management by the order, dated 15.02.1998. The management refused to regularise their services only on the ground that their names were not sponsored by the Employment Exchange. Even though regular vacancies arose, they were not regularised. They were putting in more than 240 days in every year and completed 480 days in two consecutive years and the particulars, on which, they completed 480 days of service are also given in paragraph No.9 of the claim statement. It is their contention that it is unfair on the management to employ some workmen as badlis when the work is perennial in nature. Therefore, they must be conferred permanency on the dates, on which, they have put in 480 days as per the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 and all the benefits be granted to them. Accordingly, the reference to be answered. 4. Therefore, they must be conferred permanency on the dates, on which, they have put in 480 days as per the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 and all the benefits be granted to them. Accordingly, the reference to be answered. 4. The claim was resisted by the management. The case of the management is that the Writ Petition which is mentioned is only with reference to one Natesan who was permitted to work as load man. As far as these present 11 workmen are concerned, they were workers under one Sundaramurthy, who is a Contractor, for some specified work of reconditioning the automobile components in the Corporation. They are not the employees of the respondent Corporation. There is no employer- employee relationship. They were only working under the said Sundaramurthy. Therefore, the claim has to be dismissed. 5. Initially, an award was also passed which was set aside and again was remanded back to the Labour Court. When the Labour Court took up the matter for enquiry, one Ravichandran, one of the workmen was examined as W.W.1 and Exs.W-1 to W-9 were marked on behalf of the workmen. One Basalul Haq and J.Balakumar were examined as M.W.1 and M.W.2 and Exs.M-1 to M-8 were marked on behalf of the management. Thereafter, the Labour Court considered the case of the parties. The Labour Court took into account that even though it was the claim of the management that the said Sundaramurthy was a Contractor, considered the fact that no such document was produced by the management. The Labour Court considered the documents that were produced on behalf of the workmen including, Exs.W-5 , W-8 and W-9 which were the stores in and out registers, that were maintained by the management, in which, the names of all these workmen were mentioned. Therefore, when the workmen have given proof that they were working and even though the management asserted a particular stand that these were the workmen under the said Sundaramurthy and no evidence, in support of their claim, was let in, the Labour Court held that these workmen are the regular workmen. 6. Therefore, when the workmen have given proof that they were working and even though the management asserted a particular stand that these were the workmen under the said Sundaramurthy and no evidence, in support of their claim, was let in, the Labour Court held that these workmen are the regular workmen. 6. When their date of initial engagement and the other particulars are not denied by the management, since they already put in 480 days of service, the Labour Court granted the relief by answering the reference in favour of the workmen holding that they should be conferred permanency and all the other monetary benefits to be conferred on them. 7. Mr.T.Chandrasekaran, learned Counsel for the management would submit that when it is the case of the management that the petitioners are only contract workers and there is no employer-employee relationship between them, the Labour Court ought to have seen that the onus lies on the workmen to initially discharge that they were appointed by the present management. There is no document, evidencing the appointment, produced. The only documents, in the form of Ex.W-5 , W-8 and W-9 would only evidence payment of labour charges. Therefore, in a work's contract, if the labour charges are paid, that will not create any employer-employee relationship. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence in support of the workmen, the Labour Court erred in answering the reference in favour of the workmen. 8. Per contra, Mr.S.T.Varadharajulu, the learned Counsel for the workmen would submit that in this case, Exs.W-5 , W-8 and W-9 etc., contain the name of one Natesan also. When Natesan's name, along with some of these workmen name, finds place in these documents and it is said that labour charges are paid, when Natesan approached this Court, in the earlier W.P.No.11145 of 1997, the management admitted that Natesan is their workmen. Therefore, they cannot be permitted to blow hot and blow cold. All along, there was no dispute that the management only appointed the workmen. Even though there was no order of appointment that was issued, ample evidence was let in by the workmen that they are appointed only by the management, they were paid wages only by the management, they were subject to supervision only by the authorities and therefore, the workmen proved their claim beyond doubt, while the management did not move their little finger to prove its contentions. 9. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case. 10. Firstly, it has to be seen whether the workmen have discharged their initial burden proving that they are working under the respondent management. The fact that they are working in the lorries with reference to loading and unloading, is not denied. Further, they have produced Exs.W-5 W-7 and W-9 which are stores in and out registers extract i.e., maintained by the management. It can be seen that all the names of these workmen are written there and the amounts that are paid to them, are entered into as labour charges. 11. In this regard, it can be seen that one of the said persons, Natesan, whose name also finds in the same exhibits, as receiving labour charges as that of the workmen, also approached this Court. The fact that the said Natesan was working under the respondent management is confirmed in the said Writ Petition in W.P.No.11145 of 1997. Therefore, when the finding of this Court is there in respect of one of the workmen receiving similar labour charges as the workmen of the management, I am of the view that the workmen have duly discharged their onus to prove the employer-employee relationship. 12. Per contra, in the written statement of the management, it is their plea that these employees are only the workers of the said Sundaramurthy. In support thereof, Ex.M-1 is only marked. Ex.M-1 is of the year 2002, in which, orders were placed to Sundaramurthy. That does not in any manner indicate any kind of labour contract or work's contract being given to him. When it is the assertion of the management that these workmen are working under said Sundaramurthy, it is ironical as to why the management had given the payment of wages, even if they are the labour charges, to the workmen directly rather than paying it to the said Sundaramrthy. 13. Once there is an employer-employee relationship, the workmen had let in evidence with reference to their initial date of engagement and the date of completion of 480 days of service. The Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 is applicable to the present management being an establishment within the definition of that Act. 13. Once there is an employer-employee relationship, the workmen had let in evidence with reference to their initial date of engagement and the date of completion of 480 days of service. The Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 is applicable to the present management being an establishment within the definition of that Act. Once the said Act applies, whether the workmen are applied through employment exchange or otherwise, once they put in 480 days of service, then, they are entitled for conferment of permanency. 14. The only contention made by Mr.T.Chandrasekaran is that for conferment of permanent status, they have to approach the Inspector of Labour. But, though Inspector of Labour is entitled to make a permanency, the remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act is not barred. As a matter of fact, the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment in The Superintending Engineer, Erode Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Erode Vs. Inspector of Labour, Erode and Ors , in W.P.No.4061 of 2013 etc., (batch cases), dated 07.03.2022 has held that as a matter of fact, if the employer management itself is disputing, especially, if it has claimed that the workmen are under contract labour etc., it has been held that the industrial adjudicator will only have the jurisdiction. 15. In any event, even in a case of conferment of permanency simpliciter, the Government can also refer the said Industrial Dispute under Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, which the Government has referred in this case. Whether the workmen are simply treated as contract labourers/badlis instead of conferring permanent status on them, is very much question which can be decided by the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal and it can be very much a subject matter of dispute under Section 2k of the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, there can be no error whatsoever in the matter being referred to the Labour Court and the Labour Court granting the relief. 16. Therefore, there can be no error whatsoever in the matter being referred to the Labour Court and the Labour Court granting the relief. 16. In view thereof, this Writ Petition is disposed of on the following terms:- (i) The award of the Principal Labour Court, dated 27.12.2021 in I.D.No.241 of 2009 shall stand confirmed; (ii) It is represented that out of the 11 workmen, 6 workmen have attained the age of superannuation and in respect thereof, they shall be deemed to be in service till the date of their superannuation as regular workmen and their last drawn wages etc., shall be notionally worked out and they will be entitled to all the benefits including gratuity, Provident Fund benefits; (iii) The employees' contribution, if any, shall be deducted on the total sum payable; (iv) The workmen will not be entitled for any other back wages; (v) In respect of the rest of the five workmen, within a period of 8 weeks from today, they shall be reinstated into service by giving them appropriate postings as Helpers or any other post according to their qualifications on permanent basis and the wages shall be paid from the date of reinstatement. If the reinstatement is not given within the said period, then, the said workmen will be entitled for wages from today; (vi) The entire arrears in respect of the 6 workmen shall also be paid within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a web- copy of this order without waiting for a certified copy of this order. If the arrears are not paid within the said period, then, the same shall carry the interest at the rate of 9% per annum from today; (vii) There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.