The legal position about the regularization of the workmen of the contractor, whose contract is declared shame and camouflage, cannot be better than that of the daily wagers, who have not been recruited as per recruitment rules and have worked for years.

SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.

( 1 ) BY This writ petition, the petitioner challenged the Award dated 9. 1. 2002 passed by the Industrial Tribunal III directing the petitioner to absorb 64 workmen on regular basis in proper pay scale and allowances in the establishment. These 64 workmen were employees of respondent No. 3, a security agency, engaged by the petitioner for security of its building and plants.

( 2 ) THE undisputed facts are that all the 64 workmen who sought absorption and regularization, were engaged by respondent No. 3 Sentinal Securities Services limited (hereby after called the 'contractor') to work as security guards at the premises of the petitioner for watch and ward and for fire protection and vigilance. These workmen raised industrial dispute alleging that the work being done by them was of a perennial nature and the contract entered into between the petitioner and the Contractor was a camouflage and they were entitled for regularization in the petitioner's organization. They pleaded that administrative control and supervision over them (security guards) was that of petitioner and therefore for all intents and purposes, the security guards engaged by the Contractor should be considered as employees of the petitioner.

( 3 ) THE dispute was referred by the Government of NCT of Delhi to the tribunal and the Tribunal came to the conclusion that contract between the petitioner and the contractor was not a genuine contract, it was merely a camouflage. The Tribunal therefore gave directions for absorbing all 64 workmen by the petitioner on regular basis. The Tribunal came to the conclusion about the contract being sham and camouflage on the following basis:- (i) the petitioner was not registered under Section 7 of the Contract labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970. The Contractor had valid license under the Act only for a period of one year and five months. He was without license from 1994 till 1. 11. 1996. (ii) There was non-compliance of provisions of the Act like providing facilities of canteen, rest room etc and the workmen were not issued employment cards. (iii) Though the contract entered into between the petitioner and the contractor was for watch and ward but clause 4. 1 of the contract provided that work was not limited to watch and ward and workmen could be given such other duties as may be assigned to them from time to time. Therefore, the contract was uncertain and vague and contract was hit by section 29 of the Indian Contract act. (iv) Clause 4. 1 shows that management had overriding power and every activity was to be done as per directions of the management from time to time so management had administrative control and supervision over the workmen. The strength of security guards could be increased or decreased as per the discretion of the management. The Contractor was not at liberty to render the security services as per his skill and it was management/ petitioner who was to instruct the Contractor how the guards were to be used from time to time. (v) The physical standards of the security guards to be provided by the contractor were laid down by the petitioner. (vi) When the workmen of Power Grid i. e petitioner, were on strike and dharna these security guards had shown higher degree of devotion and loyalty and had not gone on strike.

( 4 ) THE Tribunal held that all the employees of the Contractor were to be treated as employees of the Power Grid Corporation in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India and Ors. Vs. National Union waterfront Workers " 2001 (7) SCC 1.

( 5 ) THE order of the Tribunal has been challenged by the petitioner on the following grounds:- (i) That the Award suffers from the legal infirmity and is contrary to the material brought on record. The evidence led by the management showed that the petitioner and the Contractor had entered into a genuine and real contract. The contract was for a limited duration and there was no direct relatio