(1) THIS Writ Petition is by the Union, questioning the award, in I. D. No. 251/2002 on the file of Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore dated 4th July 2006.

(2) PETITIONER union sought for reference of dispute and the State Government in terms of its order dated 8-11-2002 produced at Annexure-A referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal on an issue as to whether the respondent No. 1 municipal Council justified in not regularising the services of 250 workmen of the respondent - Municipal Council and also for not paying equal pay for equal work and also as to whether the respondent is justified in not providing uniform, footwear and other facilities.

(3) BEFORE the Industrial Tribunal, Union alleged that, they have been working for several years in the Municipality on different wages and in 1997, the municipality started paying the salaries through the third person, calling himself as contractor. It is stated that, the municipality being a self Government and State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, it cannot discriminate the employees, who are similarly placed. On various grounds, the petitioner - Union claimed that, services of 250 employees required to be regularized and they should be paid equal wages on par with similarly placed other employees in the respondent - Municipal Council.

(4) THE said claim petition was opposed by the Municipal Council on the ground that, the dispute itself is not maintainable as there is no relationship of master and servant or employer or employee. 250 members of the union are contract labourers working under the contractor. Municipality has engaged the services of the contractor by calling for tenders and every year fresh contract is called for. The payments are made to the labourers only by the contractor and not by the Municipality, before the Industrial Tribunal, evidence was also led on behalf of the union as well as on behalf of the respondent. Industrial Tribunal on considering the evidence held that, these employees are working through the contractor and there is no relationship of employer and employee between the respondent and petitioner and dismissed the dispute.

(5) SRI. Narayana Bhat, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, in order to attract the provisions of the Contract labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (in short referred to as 'the Act'), respondent Municipal council must be registered under the provisions of the Act and the contractor must be a licensed contractor. He

submitted that, Municipal Council has not been registered as required under Section 7 of the Act. Further, the alleged contractor is not a licensed contractor in terms of Section 12 of the Act. In order to camouflage the real issue of employer and employee, the contractor is brought in by the Municipal Council and amount is paid through the contractor. In reality, it is the municipal Council, which has engaged the services of these employees. He also submitted that, the alleged transaction between the municipal Council and the contractor is a sham transaction and it is made only to escape the obligation of continuing the employment of these employees, who are otherwise required to be reguarlised in the service. He submitted that, even though the Municipal council alleges that, there is a contract, but for last several years, these employees are continued in the employment and this fact is not admitted by MW-1 in his cross examination. He further submitted that, if the transaction is a sham transaction and in reality if the municipal Council is the employer, the relationship of employer and employee exists and these employees having served for more than 10 to 15 years, they are entitled for regularisation of their services and also for equal wages on par with other similarly placed employees.

(6) IN support of his contention, he relied on a judgment reported in AIR 2003 SC 3124 in the matter of Mishra Dhatu Nigam Limited etc. v. M. Venkataia