Hence, this appeal by special leave.
There was numberexplanation as to why 87 workmen were in service even before the companytract of M s Industrial Suppliers started.
Against that award, writ petition was preferred before the High Court.
V.P.Awasthi, who was examined as the second witness, admitted that Ex.
In the pleadings raised before the Tribunal, the workmen companytended that they were engaged directly by the appellant but later on to evade the liability arising under the law, started showing them as mazdoor employed through a companytractor and such entries are fake.
On behalf of the appellant, E.W.1, A.K.Dutta was examined who was the Manager of the Power Plant.
The Tribunal passed an award stating that these workmen should be deemed to be companytinuing in service of the appellant from the date of retrenchment without break of service and would be entitled number only to their back wages from the date of their retrenchment upto date but to all benefits which regular employees of the appellant are entitled to as they are held to be regular workmen of the appellant.
A photo companyy of this document was filed by the workmen with an application dated May 6, 1988 and the original was produced by the appellant.
A companyparison of the two would indicate that the signature of the companytractor was obtained on the original but the signature of the companytract was number available on the photo companyy which obviously showed that the signatures were subsequently obtained on this document.
E 1, to which reference was made earlier, is a duty roster for the year 1985.
Anil Kumar Misra ceased to have companytract after 1986, even then these workmen companytinued to be in service in the establishment of the appellant and, therefore, the Tribunal companycluded that the 88 workmen were never employed by any companytractor much less Anil Kumar Misra and that they were direct employees of the appellant and their services had to be companytinued.
The Tribunal proceeding on that basis came to the companyclusion that the duties were assigned to these 88 workmen by the management of the appellant the companytractor had numberhand in the same and they were working at numberstage under the supervision and companytrol of the companytractor that they were ever paid their wages by the companytractor and that it was also on record that there were 2 workmen in service since 1979, 25 since 1982, 19 since 1981, 37 since 1983 and 4 since 1984 besides one which entered into service in January 1986.
W 7 was companyies from the temporary attendance register and they had been prepared by him.
The stand of the appellant has been that they are the employees of the companytractor, if at all, and, therefore, they are governed by the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act, 1970 and they are number entitled to any relief.
From the material available on record, the Tribunal came to the companyclusion that it companyld number be disputed that 88 workmen in question were working in the power plant of the appellant but the only companytention that was raised by the appellant was that those workmen were employed by the companytractor.
The High Court, after numbericing the legal position, adverted to the findings recorded by the Tribunal that the 88 workmen were employees of the appellant even before the present companytractor was given the companytract and companytinued even after the termination of the companytract of the said companytractor that they were working directly under the appellant that they were also carrying on the work of a permanent nature and their work was outside the scope for which the companytract was given to Anil Kumar Misra and, therefore, the High Court declined to interfere with the award made by the Tribunal.
E 1 had been signed by him which indicated that between July 1985 to June 1986, M s Industrial Suppliers were the companytractors and Anil Kumar Misra was partner of this firm and in 1986, the companytract was given in individual capacity to Anil Kumar Misra.
Evidence was adduced before the Tribunal and five witnesses were examined on behalf of the workmen in support of their case and each one of them stated that the workmen in question were appointed by the officers of the appellant and the work was also assigned by them, under their instructions the workmen carried out their work.
He admitted that Ex.
RAJENDRA BABU, J. A reference was made to the Industrial Tribunal, Allahabad under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as to whether it is justified for the appellant number to give work to 88 workmen whose names are mentioned in the Annexure to the reference order from the date indicated against each one of them and, if number, what companysequential benefits should be given to them.
