The main legal point established in the judgment is the Tribunal's authority to appoint a local commissioner under Section 33C(3) of the ID Act and the duty of parties to adhere to the principles of natural justice without using them to delay proceedings.

1. By the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner impugns order dated 22.06.2012 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court No.-I (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in LCA No.9/2000 appointing Mr. D.K. Tyagi, Advocate as the local commissioner, order dated 22.02.2013 closing of the opportunity of the petitioner to argue the matter and order dated 27.02.2013 dismissing the application of the petitioner under Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ID Act) seeking directions to contractors for production of original records and also dismissing the objection of the petitioner that the appointment of Mr. D.K. Tyagi, Advocate as local commissioner was violative of Rule 63 of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’) along with the objections against the report filed by him.

2. Briefly stating the facts as emerging from the present petition are that in the year 1998-99, the petitioner awarded contract to contractors namely HTS Enterprise, Swastik Enterprise, Bhanot Electric Works, M/s. Competent Engineering Works and M/s. S.K. Consumers for carrying out some work in the institute. The work awarded to the contractors was said to have been carried out by the contractor through its employees including the respondent herein. The respondent alongwith other employees filed several writ petitions bearing W.P.(C) Nos. 5257/99, 5856/99, 6169/99, 6915/99, 5388/99, 5967/99, 6227/99, 5537/99, 6006/99 and 6886/99 seeking their regularisation with the petitioner on the ground that the work in which they were engaged was of perennial nature and further seeking that the salary be paid to them as per their counter parts engaged on a regular basis with the petitioner. Directions were also sought in these petitions that the respondents therein (including the present respondent) be employed directly under the petitioner’s institute instead of appointing them through a contractor. In the said petitions this court, appointed the Chief Labour Commissioner vide its order dated 02.02.2000 with directions to hold inquiries from the contractor with regard to the payment of wages to the present respondent and other employees. The said labour commissioner submitted its report dated 13.03.2000 wherein it was recorded that the contractor had already placed evidence indicating that up-to-date payment had been made to the present respondent and other employees along with the observation that the contract awarded to the contractors in regard to the said employees had already expired by November 1999 and the payments had already been made.

3. The said report was filed by the Chief Labour Commissioner before this court whereby the writ petitions filed by the said employees were disposed of vide its order dated 26.09.2000 referring the dispute between the parties to the Central Advisory Contract Labour Board for decision on merits. It was further directed that pending the recommendations made by the Central Advisory Contract Labour Board, the service of the respondent should not be substituted with other contract labours.

4. Thereafter, the respondent alongwith other employees filed an application under Section 33C (2) of the ID Act claiming their wages which were pending payment before the Tribunal. By such an application the respondent and said employees claimed wages for the period w.e.f. 01.08.1999 to 30.01.2000. The petitioner filed its reply to the said application, stating that the present respondent and the said employees had already been paid their wages by the contractor and this fact was already reported by the Chief Labour Commissioner appointed by this court in his report. The contractor also filed its reply stating that the contract awarded to it by the petitioner had come to an end by November 1999 and the concerned workmen had already been paid their salary which fact has already been substant