JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.

1. The legality and validity of an Award dated 25.11.2014 passed by the learned Labour Court, Guwahati in Case No. 3 of 2014 is the subject matter of challenge in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. By the aforesaid Award, the termination of the workmen, who have been arrayed as private respondents in this case has been interfered with and it has been held that balancing the convenience and inconvenience of the parties, an amount of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand) be granted as compensation to each of the workman instead of reinstatement.

2. Before going to the issue which has arisen for determination, the facts of the case, as projected in the writ petition, may be narrated briefly.

3. The respondent nos. 1 to 15 had filed an application under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter the ID Act) alleging that the petitioner Management had debarred them from entering the premises and in other words, they were terminated from their services. The petitioner, on receipt of notice had contested the case and raised a preliminary issue on the maintainability by contending that the workmen were contract labourers who were working under a contractor, one Shri Chandan Kakati who duly held a license under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter Act of 1970). It was contended that there was no employer-employee relationship existing and therefore, no relief could have been claimed.

4. Upon consideration of the written statements, the following three issues were framed by the learned Labour Court:

(i) Whether the workmen nos. 1-15 are contract laborers engaged by the labour contractor?

(ii) Whether the labour contractor is a necessary party to the instant proceeding? If yes, whether the present proceeding is bad for non-joinder of labour contractor as a party.

(iii) What relief/reliefs the parties are entitled to?

5. The petitioner had adduced evidence by 2 nos. of witnesses, including the contractor - Shri Chandan Kakati. On the other hand, the workmen had adduced evidence through 3 nos. of witnesses. It is contended that two of the witnesses of the workmen had admitted regarding their engagement by the contractor Shri Chandan Kakati. The learned Labour Court, as has been stated above, had passed the Award on 25.11.2014 by answering the issues in favour of the workmen and had directed payment of compensation at the rate of Rs. 75,000/- to each of the workman instead of reinstatement.

6. It is the legality and correctness of the aforesaid Award dated 25.11.2014 which is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.

7. I have heard Shri Surajit Dutta, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Shri K. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri Suman Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 15. The LCRs which have been transmitted to this Court have been carefully perused.

8. Shri Dutta, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has formulated the following grounds of challenge:

(i) The petition filed by the respondent nos. 1 to 15 under Section 2-A of the ID Act was not maintainable;

(ii) Even if such petition is held to be maintainable, it is an admitted fact that the respondent nos. 1 to 15 were engaged by a contractor - Shri Chandan Kakati and therefore, there was no employer-employee relationship;

(iii) There was no issue framed with regard to the authenticity/genuineness of the agreement between the petitioner and the contractor - Chandan Kakati and therefore, there was no occasion on the part of the learned Labour Court to give any findings on the same;

(iv) When the respondent nos. 1 to 15 could not even show a single document with regard to they being the employees of the petitioner, the question of payment of any compensation would not arise.

9. Elaborating his submissions, Shri Dutta contends that though under Section 2-A of the ID Act, right has been given to an individual work