The court emphasized that the grounds for seeking a review must conform to the criteria specified in the law and clarified the petitioner's liberty to set off the amounts already paid to the workmen as per the Award.

JUDGMENT :

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. This order disposes of Review Petition No. 125/2018.

2. Given the limited issue involved, a brief reference to facts would suffice.

3. The Standing Conference of Public Enterprises (SCOPE - the review applicant, as well as the petitioner in the present proceedings) addressed a communication, on 22nd February, 1989, to the Directorate General Resettlement (DGR), Ministry of Defence, stating that it had constructed a multi-storeyed office complex at Lodhi Road, for accommodating 28 leading public sector undertakings, and was required to provide security services for the said premises. The DGR was, therefore, requested to recommend agencies for the purpose. In response thereto, the DGR, vide a communication dated 10th August, 1989, nominated two agencies, from whom the petitioner invited quotations on 28th September, 1989. The quotations were evaluated by a Committee which, vide its minutes dated 25th October, 1989, approved the offer of M/s Delhi Guard and Security Services (DGSS). As such, the contract for providing security services at the SCOPE Building was awarded, by the petitioner, to DGSS.

4. In course of time, five writ petitions, one by the New Delhi General Mazdoor Union, and the remaining four by the Delhi Officers and Establishment Employees Union, were filed, before this Court, against the petitioner. In the said writ petitions, the Unions contended that, as the present petitioner, i.e. SCOPE, was not registered under Section 7 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and the contractors (including DGSS), were not licensed, under Section 12 of the said Act, the workmen were entitled to be treated as direct employees of SCOPE. While rejecting the said submission, this Court, vide judgment dated 30th April, 1991 (New Delhi General Mazdoor Union vs. Standing Conference of Public Enterprises, ILR (1992) 1 Del. 358), clarified that it was not examining the issue of whether the workmen were entitled to be treated as employees of SCOPE under any other Act, including the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the ID Act”). The said judgment was carried, in appeal, by the Unions, to the Supreme Court. The appeals, of which Civil Appeal No. 5497/1995, Gujarat Electricity Board, Thermal Power Station, Ukai vs. Hind Mazdoor Sabha, (1995) 5 SCC 27 was treated as the lead case, were disposed of, by the Supreme Court, vide a detailed judgment dated 9th May, 1995. In the said judgment, the Supreme Court held that, when an industrial dispute was raised, the industrial adjudicator had to decide whether the contract, with the contractor, was sham or genuine. Jurisdiction, to adjudicate the dispute, it was clarified, would vest, in the industrial adjudicator, only consequent upon a finding that the contract was a sham. In case the contract was found to be genuine, the industrial adjudicator would have to refer the workmen to the appropriate Government for abolition of contract labour under Section 10 of the ID Act and to keep the dispute pending. In view of this enunciation of the law, the Supreme Court held, on facts, that the decision, of this Court, that the workmen did not become direct employees of the respondent enterprises (including SCOPE) merely because there were no registration certificates and licenses with SCOPE, had to be upheld. Thereafter, in para 73 of the report, the Supreme Court observed thus:

“73. The remedy of the workmen is to raise a proper industrial dispute as indicated earlier for appropriate reliefs. If and when such dispute is raised, the Government should make the reference within two months of the receipt of the dispute and the industrial adjudicator should dispose of the same as far as possible within six months thereafter.”

5. The respondent-workmen, accordingly, raised an industrial dispute which was referred, vide order dated 20th July, 1995 of the GNCTD to the learned Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. The term of reference read thu