The judgment emphasizes the importance of raising specific industrial disputes regarding the nature of the contract and the abolition of the contract labour system. It clarifies that the power to abolish the contract labour system under Section 10 of the CLRA Act rests with the appropriate Government.

SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.

( 1 ) BY these writ petitions, the petitioner has challenged the validity of award dated 4th February, 2004 passed by the Industrial Tribunal No. 1 in ID no. 143/96 whereby the reference was answered against the petitioner.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY, the facts are that the petitioners claimed that they were working as security guards with the respondent management. The management was not providing them legal facilities like conveyance allowance, house rent allowance etc. and the management was not regularizing them though they were doing the same work as those persons who were working in the management on regular basis. They prayed that the contract labour system be abolished and they be regularized. The management dismissed the claim of the petitioners and following disputes were referred by the appropriate Government for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal:"i. Whether the workmen engaged for security jobs are entitled to be regularized if so, what directions are necessary in the respect" ii. Whether the security employees are entitled for (a) Conveyance allowance (b)House Rent Allowance, if so, what directions are necessary in this respect" iii. Whether the security employees are entitled to inform, shoes and socks, if so, what directions are necessary in this respect. "

( 3 ) IN the statement of claim, the respondent took the stand that none of the petitioners was the employee of the respondent management. There was no relationship of employer and employee. The management had awarded a contract of hospital security to Senital Security Systems, Faridabad, who used to look after the security of hospital and employed security guards at the hospital as per the requirement. The presence of the security guards, their timings, supervision etc was with the contractor. The management had no control over the claimants. They were employees of the contractor. The learned Labour Court framed an additional issue regarding relationship of the claimants with the management. The evidence of both parties was recorded and after recording evidence and considering the same, the Tribunal came to conclusion that it was the case of the claimants themselves that they were the employees of Senital Security services and nowhere, either in the statement of claim or in the affidavit, they had stated that they were direct employees of the management. The evidence also showed that they were being paid salary by the contractor and the supervision was also with the contractor. The Tribunal came to conclusion that there was no employer and employee relationship between the management and the claimants and the claimants cannot be granted any relief of regularization and other reliefs as sought by them in the industrial dispute referred to it.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner argued that the Tribunal went wrong in holding that there was no relationship of employer and employees. The contract entered into between Senital Security Services and the management was sham and camouflage. The contractor was merely a name lender. The real supervision and control was with the management/hospital and, therefore, the tribunal should have held that they were the employees of GTB Hospital and there was a relationship of employer and employee.

( 5 ) I consider that this argument of the counsel of the petitioner must fail. The petitioners, before Conciliation Officer as well as before the appropriate Government, did not raise any dispute about the contract being sham and camouflage. They rather claimed that they were direct employees of the management and did not claim that they were employees of the contractor. It is now settled law that where the workmen claim that the contract between principle employer and contractor was sham and camouflage, they have to raise an industrial dispute to that effect and it is industrial adjudicator who, after going through the evidence and the terms and conditions of the contract and other circumstances has to d