L. Narayana Swamy, J.

The petitioner has filed the above writ petition seeking to challenge the order dated 4.4.2009 and judgment and award dated 23.8.2012 in Reference No.32/1998 passed by the II Additional Labour Court, at Bengaluru produced at Annexures-R & S to the writ petition. By the order dated 4.4.2009 the Labour Court held that dispute was maintainable as there was community of interest and there was employer employee relationship between the petitioner and security guards, who raised the dispute I D No.32/98. By the award dated 23.8.2012 the Labour Court held that contract is sham and granted benefit of regularization and directed to pay arrears of wages.

2. The facts leading to this writ petition are that the respondent union raised a dispute on behalf of Security Guards employed through contractor in the petitioner establishment at Naganathapura Plant and sought for absorption. The points of reference are as under:

(i) Can the Karnataka Rakshaka And General Workers Union 48, MIG 2nd Floor, 2nd Stage, KHB Colony, Basaveswaranagara, Bangalore 560 079 prove that the Contract of Security by the Administrators of M/s.Motor Industries Company Ltd., Naganathapura, is non-existent (shyam)?

(ii) In that case for what relief are the security staff eligible?

The petitioner Management filed application for framing issues regarding maintainability of the dispute and accordingly by the order dated 5.10.2000 three preliminary issues were framed, which are as follows:

(1) Whether the Karnataka Rakshak & General Workmen Union has locus standi to represent the first party workmen?

(2) Whether the workmen whose names have been mentioned in the list along with the point of reference referred by the Government are the Contract Labourers and if so, without abolition of the Contract Labour the dispute raised by the first party is maintainable?

(3) Whether there is relationship of employer and employee between the first party workmen with the second party whose names have been mentioned in the list enclosed along with the point of reference as per the provisions of the I.D.Act?

3. By the order dated 4.4.2009 the Labour Court held on preliminary issues that the dispute was maintainable and that there is relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner company and the Security guards engaged by the contractor who raised the dispute. It was also held that in view of holding existence of relationship, Issue No.2 as to contract labourers and abolition of the contract labour as per the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition), Act does not assume much importance and does not survive for consideration. This order was challenged by the petitioner in W P No.27075/2009 (L-Ter). This Court by the order dated 14.09.2009 disposed of the writ petition on the basis of the memo filed by the petitioner reserving liberty to challenge the order along with the final award.

4. On behalf of the petitioner Management, MWs-1 to MW- 5, were examined and got marked Ex.M1 to M101. On behalf of the respondent, WWs-1 to WW-5, were examined and got marked Exs.W1 to W151.

5. The Labour Court by the award dated 23.8.2012 held that contract is sham and granted benefit of regularization and payment of arrears of wages.

6. Being aggrieved, the petitioner Management has filed the present writ petition assailing both orders dated 4.4.2009 and judgment and award dated 23.8.2012 as aforesaid.

7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that engagement of persons as contract labourers does not create a relationship of master and servant. In this regard, the learned relied upon (The Workmen of the Food Corporation of India vs. Management of Food Corporation of India, (1985) 2 LLJ 4), (Deenanath & Ors. vs. National Fertilizers Ltd., & others, (1992) 1 LLJ 289) and (Steel Authority of India Ltd., & others vs. National Union Water Front Workers & others, (2001) 2 LLJ 1087). The dispute could be raised only by the regular workmen through their union