The court affirmed that non-compliance with contractor licensing does not negate the employer-employee relationship, emphasizing control and direct employment evidence.

JUDGMENT

Chandra Dhari Singh, J.

FACTUAL MATRIX

1. The petitioner is a Government entity governed by statutory rules & regulations for the appointment of its employees. The respondents are casual laborers who earlier worked with the petitioner.

2. In the year 1998, the petitioner had entered into a contract with an agency named M/s Navnidh Carriers for Transport, loading & Unloading Contraction service on Commission basis for the petitioner as and when required.

3. In the year 1999, the respondents filed an Original Application bearing no. 2637/1999 under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (`CAT' hereinafter) seeking directions to the petitioner for pay parity and grant of temporary status from the date on which they completed the requisite number of days at work as per the scheme notified by the petitioner on 17th March, 1994, however, the said application was dismissed ex parte on the grounds that there exists no employee employer relationship between the petitioner and the respondents and therefore, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the case.

4. Thereafter, the respondents filed for conciliation, however, due to failure of the same, the matter was referred to the Industrial Tribunal by the Central Government.

5. In the year 2001, the respondents' services were terminated leading to the filing of a dispute under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (`ID Act' hereinafter). After hearing the parties at length, the learned Industrial Tribunal passed a common impugned award dated 15th October, 2007 in favor of the respondents and directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondents along with 25% back wages.

6. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred the present petition against the impugned award.

SUBMISSIONS

(On behalf of the petitioner)

7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in all the writ petitions submitted that the learned Tribunal failed to correctly acknowledge the fact that the petitioner, as the Principal Employer, had no authority or oversight over matters such as hiring, firing, promotions, wage determination, workplace assignment, transfers, or other employment conditions of the workers employed by the contractor.

8. It is submitted that there is no employer-employee relationship between the parties, and therefore, no industrial dispute, as defined in Section 2(k) of the ID Act could have arisen in the absence of such an employment relationship among the parties.

9. It is submitted that even if M/s Navnidh Carriers, the contractor, did not possess a license under the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 (`the Act' hereinafter) for the supply of casual labourers, it should, at most, be considered a violation of Sections 7 and 12 of the Act. Any such violations, if present, would trigger the consequences outlined in Sections 14 and 23 of the Act, however, the conclusion reached by the learned Tribunal, which states that the Respondent-workers were the employees of the petitioner (Principal Employer) solely because M/s Navnidh Carriers lacked the required license under the Act is legally incorrect and unsustainable.

10. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the fact that the entry/gate pass was issued to the workman after a request was made by the contractor- M/s Navnidh Carriers for supply of laborers in terms of the work order between the petitioner and M/s Navnidh Carriers.

11. It is submitted that the learned Industrial Tribunal erred in not appreciating that the petitioner was not paying any wages to the respondent, rather the contractor was responsible for payment of the wages and other demands of the workman engaged by him for carrying out the work assigned to it.

12. It is submitted that M/s. Navnidh Carriers is a necessary party to the present dispute and therefore the proceedings before the learned Tribunal were bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties.

13. It is submitted th