The main legal point established in the judgment is that the employer/employee relationship and the nature of work performed by the workmen were crucial in determining the legality of the award. The court upheld the finding that the workmen were under the control of the company and their employment by the contractor was a sham arrangement.

Aniruddha Bose, J.

The petitioners before me are Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL), a public sector organization. In this writ petition, they have challenged the legality of an award passed by the learned Judge, 9th Industrial Tribunal, Durgapur on 4th September 2009 directing them to treat one hundred and fifty nine persons as workmen of the management. According to SAIL, these persons were engaged by the contractors of the Company for undertaking intermittent jobs, and were not employees of SAIL. The award further directs the Company to give identical pecuniary benefits and other service benefits to the persons covered by it at par with other workmen already admitted in the company's roll and such benefits have been directed to be extended with effect from 24th January 2005, being the date of reference of the dispute to the Tribunal.

2. This award was passed on the basis of reference made to the Tribunal by the State Government by an order issued in terms of Section 10(2A) of the Industrial Disputes act, 1947 bearing no. 65-I.R/I.R/10I-50/2002 dated 17th January 2005 in respect of the dispute between the parties on two issues. These issues were:-

"1. Whether the claim of the union for regularization of the services of 159 workmen (vide list enclosed) in the company is justified"

2. What relief, if any, are they entitled?"

3. The persons who have been directed to be treated as workmen of the Company are represented by a trade union, Burnpur Ispat Karmachari Sangha. Their claim is that these workmen were engaged initially as contract workers at the erstwhile Indian Iron and Steel Company (IISCO) Burnpur works between the years 1968 and 1982. Thereafter, they had become workmen of the petitioners. IISCO was a subsidiary of the writ petitioners, SAIL but has since been merged with the latter and is one of the units of SAIL. The Government of West Bengal on 9th February 1980 issued a notification in exercise of power under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Abolition and Regulation) Act, 1970 (the 1970 Act) prohibiting different categories of jobs in different departments of the Company with effect from 1st April 1980. Subsequent to issue of that notification on 9th February 1980, number of workmen who were initially working under the contractors were regularized by the management of SAIL at the intervention of authorities of the labour department. But these workmen, represented by the respondent no. 1 did not get such benefit. The case of the workmen before the Tribunal was that the jobs they were performing were perennial in nature and were essential to smooth functioning of the Company. In their claim statement before the Tribunal, it had been urged on behalf of the workmen that in the year 1984, all the contracts were abolished and these workmen were brought under direct control of the actual employer. It has been alleged that thereafter some contractors were brought in through "paper arrangement". SAIL's stand, however, is that these workmen had been deployed at all material points of time in non-notified jobs. Specific case of the petitioners is that the jobs being performed by the aforesaid persons, who were engaged by contractors were intermittent, non-notified casual jobs like carrying out miscellaneous works which were preparatory arrangements, such as housekeeping, materials handling and other jobs in Burnpur works, Riverside Pump House complex including Nehru Parks and other premises of the Company. Admitted position, however, is that though the contractors had changed from time to time, these persons continued to work for the same organization. This practise has been attributed by the Company to pressure from the Trade Unions. In paragraph 2 of the writ petition, the fact that these workmen had continued to work has been admitted, but it has been stated that this was done for the sake of industrial peace and harmony. It is also the petitioners' stand that the question of absorption of such contract workmen