1. This petition has been filed against the order of the Industrial Court in Revision Application (ULP) No. 128 of 1995. This revision application was filed against the order of the Labour Court. The facts involved in the present petition are as follows:-

The petitioner contends that the respondent Company employed some workmen through contractors. The petitioner apprehended that the services of the workmen would be terminated as a result of the change of contractors sought to be introduced by the respondent No.1 Company. The petitioner, therefore, filed the complaint under Item 1(a), (b), (d) & (f) of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971. The contention raised in the complaint, which was registered as Complaint (ULP) No. 118 of 1993 was that the workers whose names figured in Annexure-A to the complaint were employees of the respondent No.1 Company and that the respondent No.1 had "inducted" contractors as a camouflage. It was pleaded that this arrangement was effected only in order to deprive the workmen the benefits of permanent employees and to camouflage the relationship of employer and employee between the respondent No.1 Company and the workers. It w