1. The petitioner, management of National Aerospace Laboratories (NAL), has challenged the award dated 30-12-2005 of the Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru in I.D.No.37/2001, directing regularization of services of 24 workmen from the date of reference, with appropriate pay scales.

2. The petitioner is stated to be a constituent unit of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), New Delhi which is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and actively engaged in research and development work in science and technology area of aerospace. The petitioner is stated to be undertaking sponsored projects of the Government and other public and private institutions on commercial basis. Regular employees of the petitioner are stated to be governed by the pay-scales and other service conditions of the CSIR, while another category of contract employees were employed to work in various projects alongside the regular employees, but with meager salary and without the security of service. Petitioner claims to have entered into a contract with Respondent No.2 company NALTECH, for supply of such additional manpower in compliance with the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970.

3. Upon failure to reach a settlement in conciliation proceedings, Respondent No.1 – union, espousing disputes related to contract employees in private and public companies and autonomous bodies, raised a dispute on behalf of 67 contract workers in the establishment of the petitioner and sought regularization of their services. Government of Karnataka, referred the dispute on 24-04-2001 to Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, under section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘ID Act’ for short) with the terms of reference as under:

“(1) Whether the Engineering and General Workers union is justified in demanding (complaining) that the Management of M/s National Aerospace Laboratories Bangalore establishment has not made the services of 67 persons, working as contract labour permanent, although they have been discharging work of permanent nature?

(2) If not, what relief the said contract workmen are entitled to?”

(Above is the translation of the original in Kannada, which is agreed by the counsel to be correct translation.)

4. Before the Tribunal, Respondent No.1 – union claimed that the workmen in question were employed by the petitioner since 1994 to 1996 or 1997 in technical posts and were discharging continuously the duties of permanent and perennial nature, were shifted to new projects after completion of old ones and that Respondent No.2-company, NALTECH was floated by the petitioner establishment itself, subsequently, as an artificial intermediary, only to circumvent the law and exploit the labour. The union claimed that the workmen had gained and acquired skills, knowledge and experience in their respective jobs and continued to serve the petitioner establishment with legitimate expectation that their services would be regularized and they would be absorbed.

5. The Tribunal, after examination of witnesses and arguments of parties, including impleaded second party respondent (b), NALTECH, has made the impugned award dated 30-12-2005 directing NAL to regularize services of 24 of the remaining workmen. By the time the award was made, only 19 workmen were continuing in service and whose rights were left to be adjudicated. Respondent No.2 – NALTECH has supported the contentions of the petitioner before the Industrial Tribunal and claimed that the workmen concerned were contract employees supplied on temporary basis for specified projects and specified periods as required by the petitioner.

6. Learned senior counsel Mr. S.N. Murthy appearing for the petitioner – company NAL, firstly contended that the impugned award dated 30-12-2005 has to be set aside by this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction, as the petitioner establishment is a research facility and not an ‘industry’ for the purposes of section 2(j) of