The status of contract labour and the determination of their employment status in the event of a prohibition notification under the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 is crucial and requires the assessment of the Industrial Adjudicator based on the evidence presented.

A.S. Bopanna, J.

1. The petition in W.P. No. 503/2007 is filed by the petitioner-Management assailing the award dated 26.09.2006 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bengaluru ('CGIT for short) in C.R. No. 178/1997 c/w Complaint Nos. 1 to 8/2005. The respondent-Workmen who are concerned therein have filed the petition in W.P. No. 4084/2007 against the same award only in so far as denial of entire relief. In that view, since they are inter-related, both the petitions are taken up together and disposed by this common order.

2. Since the array of the parties are different in the petitions, they are referred to as 'Management' and 'Workmen' wherever they are necessary to be referred for the purpose of convenience and clarity.

3. The instant case has a chequered history. The Workmen had raised a dispute seeking regularisation of their services, which was referred by the appropriate Government and was pending before the CGIT in C.R. No. 178/1997. Since the engagement of the Workmen as contract Labour was also the issue and they were being terminated as the contractor was absconding, the Workmen were before this Court in W.P. Nos. 10915 to 10918/1999 and connected petitions contending that a direction be issued to the appropriate Government to consider the abolition of contract Labour under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 ('the CLRA Act' for short). This Court by the order dated 23.08.1999 directed consideration and the reference which was pending was directed to be kept pending to await such consideration.

4. On consideration being made by the appropriate Government, a notification dated 01.03.2001 was issued prohibiting engagement of contract labour in the Management. In view of such prohibition, notwithstanding the reference which was already pending, the Management terminated the services of the Workmen by the order dated 21.04.2001. The Workmen were before this Court in W.P. Nos. 18456-18464/2001 assailing the same. This Court by the order dated 31.05.2001 quashed the order of termination and directed reconsideration in terms of the observation made therein. The Management claiming to be aggrieved by the same filed appeals in W.A. No. 4007/2001 and connected appeals which were disposed on 07.11.2001 directing the parties to work out their remedies including to seek reference to Industrial Tribunal.

5. Since the reference in C.R. No. 178/1997 was pending, the same was proceeded and the CGIT by its award dated 10.04.2002 rejected the reference. The Workmen claiming to be aggrieved assailed it in W.P. Nos. 22950-957/2002 before this Court. On consideration, this Court by the order dated 18.02.2005 allowed the petitions, set aside the award and remanded the matter to CGIT to reconsider, with liberty to the parties to file additional pleadings. On remand and when the matter was pending, the Workmen also filed complaints in Nos. 1 to 8/2005 under Section 33- A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('I.D. Act' for short) alleging violation since the termination of the Workmen was made without approval when the dispute was pending before the CGIT. The said complaints were also clubbed with the remanded C.R. No. 178/1997 and on reconsideration, the award dated 26.09.2006 impugned herein is passed.

6. Heard Sri. C.K. Subramanya, learned counsel for the Management, Sri. V.S. Naik, learned counsel for the Workmen and perused the petition papers including the records received from the CGIT.

7. The learned counsel for the Management at the outset contended that reference itself is bad since it is not a situation as contemplated under Section 2A of I.D. Act and relied on the decision in the case of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. Anil and others (2007-I-LLJ-619) wherein it is held that Section 2A of I.D. Act does not cover every type of dispute between individual workman and his employer. The learned counsel for the Workmen would however point out that the reference is one