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 was also contended in the complaint that the contractors were middlemen and that the contracts were sham and bogus. According to the petitioner, there was an adequate work of a permanent nature available with the respondent No.1 Company to engage permanent workmen, despite which the respondent No.1 Company had engaged contract labourers. It was also pleaded that the supervision and control over the workmen was that of the officers of the respondent No.1 Company and the workmen were engaged for work which was part and parcel of the activities of the respondent No.1 Company. It was also contended that the workmen had worked continuously for a long period of time. It was further pleaded that during the interregnum between two contractors, the workmen were directly paid by the respondent Company. The petitioner had pleaded that identity cards had been issued to the workmen by the respondent No.1 Company. It was also pleaded that Annexure-A be treated as part and parcel of the complaint.

3. In their reply, the respondent No.1 Company has denied that the persons whose names figured in Annexure-A, were their workmen. It was contended that they were employed by contractors who were in turn engaged by the respondent No.1 Company. According to the respondent Company, there was no relationship of employer and employee between itself and the workmen and, therefore, the complaint was not maintainable under the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act. As regards the contention of the petitioners that the workmen had been issued identity cards by the respondent No.1 Company, it was pleaded that these identity cards had been furnished since the contractor had failed to do so. It was also pleaded that the contributions towards Employees’ State Insurance Scheme and Provident Fund Scheme were made by the respondent No.1 as in law, the principal employer was responsible for making these payments if the contractor had failed to discharge his liability in respect of these payments.

4. The Labour Court, on the basis of the evidence led before it, has concluded that the employer i.e. the respondent Company had committed an unfair labour practice under Item 1(b), (d) and (f) of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act. It was held that there was a sham and bogus arrangement between the respondent Company and the contractor and that, in fact, there was an employer and employee relationship between the respondent No.1 Company and the workmen. The Labour Court, therefore, directed the respondent Company to reinstate the workmen with continuity of service and full back wages.

5. Being aggrieved by this decision, a revision application was preferred by the respondent No.1 Company before the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court, by a voluminous judgment running into 150 pages, has concluded, i