The judgment establishes the principle that disputes regarding the employment status of workers constitute industrial disputes under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and should be adjudicated by the appropriate labor court.

1. Since the challenge to the reference made to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, No. 1, Dhanbad made on 18.04.2012 has failed before the Writ Court, the Steel Authority of India has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal.

2. The Steel Authority of India is a Government company and is manufacturing steel. It is also engaged in the research and development activities in the field of iron and steel. The writ petition was filed challenging the Reference Order dated 18.04.2012 to the extent that the appellant was made a party in the dispute. The Reference Order dated 18.04.2012 was also challenged as not maintainable on the ground that the dispute was between the terminated employees and their employer and not between the terminated employees and the appellant. The case pleaded by the appellant before the Writ Court was that a contractor was selected through tender process for outsourcing the job of upkeep and maintenance of the Guest House and T.D.C. Programme Complex and premises of SAIL Guest House at Shyamli Township, Ranchi. The respondent No. 3 namely, M/s. Maa Construction was selected as the contractor vide letter dated 31.12.2008 on certain terms and conditions. Initially the work period was from 01.01.2009 to 31.12.2009 which was subsequently extended upto 31.03.2010. After the contract period of M/s. Maa Contraction came to an end, a fresh process was initiated and one M/s. Indian Security and Management Services was awarded the work on 31.03.2010 however, the said contractor did not retain earlier workmen. One M/s. Uma Construction Works was awarded the contract for providing support services at the appellant's unit vide letter dated 31.04.2010. The said contractor engaged 3 workmen who had earlier worked with the previous contractor. Two other workmen were engaged by one M/s. T.K. Mandal & Co. which was awarded the work for execution of the job of cutting, cleaning of grass/bushes, trimming of branches of trees and other related job. The contractors were paying EPF, EPS, EDLI, administrative charges and inspection charges in respect of the work awarded to them. The respondent No. 3 had employed 14 labourers which included 5 workmen who have raised industrial dispute. The respondent No. 4, i.e. the workers' union raised an industrial dispute on behalf of the concerned workmen and the same was referred by the State Government for adjudication by the Labour Court vide Reference No. 18 of 2010 however, it was dismissed on 06.09.2011 as not maintainable. The respondent No. 4 again raised an industrial dispute before the Regional Labour Commissioner, Ranchi vide letter dated 14.07.2011 and finally the dispute has been referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court for adjudication of the dispute vide Reference dated 18.04.2012 which was challenged by the appellant before the Writ Court. The appellant contended that the concerned workmen were engaged by the contractor and the contractor had full discretion to engage any worker. The wages to the workers were directly paid by the contractors and the appellant was making payment to the contractors under the terms and conditions of the Contract as against bill submitted by them. In these facts, the relationship of employer and employee between appellant and the concerned workmen was denied.

3. Taking exception of the words "through the contractor", the learned counsel for the appellant-Steel Authority of India Limited has contended that since the workmen were never employees of the Steel Authority of India Limited, there is no question of termination of their services by the Management of SAIL, RDCIS through, the contractor. Relying on decision in Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, (2014) 1 SCC 536, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the Reference as made by order dated 18.04.2012 suffers from infirmity and therefore, liable to be quashed.

4. By order dated 18.04.2012,