The main legal point established in the judgment is that the mere exercise of control and supervision is not sufficient to establish a relationship of employer and employee.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against an order passed by the learned single judge of this court in writ petition No. 3513 of 1986, dated 30th june, 1986 confirming the order passed by the labour court (central), Bangalore, in cca No. 2 of 1984, dated 29-1-1986 whereby the application was allowed directing that the 1st appellant to pay arrears of wages to the applicants as claimed in the application with a further direction that the 1st appellant is at liberty to recover the same from the 1st respondent herein.

( 2 ) A few facts are:applicants 50 in number filed an application before the labour court under Section 33 (c) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the act) seeking for computation of the amounts due to them on the ground that they were working as porters under the 1st respondent herein at Bangalore AIR port. The 2nd appellant was overall in-chargc of the Bangalore AIR port. The services at the bangalors AIR port, viz. , The porterage services, were entrusted to the 1st respondent by the appellants the 1st respondent was the licensee. From 1979 the 2nd appellant was holding the porterage services contract at Bangalore AIR port. The 2nd appellant was collecting a fee of Rs. 1/- per head from the applicants and was permitting them to act as porters at the Bangalore AIR port. Subsequently, the said porterage services contract was entrusted to one n. Chandrashekharaiah on a monthly licence fee. The services of the porteis were continued by the said contractor also. How ever, the said contractor was not paying the minimum wages to the applicants and, thus, the applicants were exposed to unfair labour practice. Therefore, applicants formed a union called "bangalore airport porters union" which raised a dispute on 12-9-1979 before the labour and conciliation officer, Bangalore ii. During the course of conciliation the said contractor, chandrashekharaiah offered to settle the dispute amicably. On 5-10-1978 the said contractor undertook to pay wages at Rs. 10/- per day to ead worker. The said settlement was signed before the conciliation officer. The 1st respondent was offered the contract of porterage services with effect from 1-5-1979 who in turn agreed to fix the wages of the applicants at Rs. 10/- per day. But, the 1st respondent was paying a sum of Rs. 125/- per month instead of Rs. 300/- to the applicants. When questioned, the 1st respondent informed the applicants that the society running under loss and the issue regarding the reduction of licences fee is under consideration before the authorities concerned, as soon as it is decided, the wages at the rate of Rs, 10/- per day would be paid to them. Subsequently, the licence that was granted lo the 1st respondent was determined for the period subsequent to 1984 as it quotted lower licence fee and in its place the application of one chandrasckharaiah was accepted and he became the licensee. According to the applicants, the licence lhat was earlier obtained by the 1st respondent was the one under the contract labour (regulation and abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the 1970 act), under which the appellants became the principal employers. As per Section 21 of the 1970 act any failure on the part of the contractor to pay wages, etc. The same shall be paid by the principal employers and the principal employer shall recover the same from the contractor. As there was failure on the part of the 1st respondent to pay wages to the applicants the applicants requested the appellants to pay the same. But their request was turned down by the appellants. Hence, they filed application before the labour court. The application before the labour court was opposed by the appellants herein contending that (i) the application fied under Section 33 (c) (2) and (5) of the 1947 act as not maintainable both in law and on facts; (ii) there was no relationship of employer and employee between the appellants and the applicants; (iii) aero