The absence of proper contractor registration leads to a presumption of employer-employee relationship, entitling workmen to regularization in permanent jobs.

JUDGMENT :

Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

2. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the Award dated 19.02.2001 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad in Ref. No. 26 of 1993 (Annexure-7) whereby the reference has been answered in favour of the workmen. The Term of Reference was as follows: -

The Schedule

“Whether the demand of Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union (CITU) for regularisation of Shri Lall Babu Singh, Amulo Oraon, Sambhu Prasad, Kishun Dhobi, Ram Kumar Singh, Sanjay Singh, Ajoy Singh, Yogal Pandey, Randhir Singh, Amrit Oraon, Omesh Oraon, Nepul Oraon, Bhikhu Mahto, Nand Kishor Yadav, Vijoy Kumar Saw, Yugesh Thakur, Sudhir Rajak & Prabhu Paswan on the roll of BCCL and payment to them the wages as per NCWA with retrospective effect is justified? If so, to what relief these workmen are entitled?"

3. Arguments of the Petitioner.

(i) In this writ petition, the award has been challenged wherein a direction has been issued for regularization of 18 workmen.

(ii) It is submitted that the impugned award has been passed primarily by referring to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (1997) 9 SCC 377 (Air India Statutory Corporation & Others vs. United Labour Union & Others), but the said judgment has been overruled by the Constitution Bench judgment reported in (2001) 7 SCC 1 (Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Others vs. National Union Waterfront Workers & Others). He submits that earlier the judgment reported in (1992) 1 SCC 695 (Dena Nath & Others vs. National Fertilizers Ltd. & Others) was overruled in the judgment reported in (1997) 9 SCC 377 (supra) and since the judgment reported in (1997) 9 SCC 377 (supra) has been overruled by the judgment reported in (2001) 7 SCC 1 (supra), the judgment reported in (1992) 1 SCC 695 (supra) has revived.

(iii) On the merits of the case, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it was the specific case of the workmen that they were working in permanent and prohibited category of job of Tyndal at Kachi-Balihari Colliery since long and for all purposes they were the employees of the petitioner and they were performing the permanent nature of job in connection with running of the mine. Their grievance was that though the Management had carried out the Wage Board Recommendation wherein there was a specific recommendation to place the Tyndal in Category-IV, but these workmen were performing the same nature of work as others [who were getting Category IV wages and designation of Tyndal] but they were denied the same status as that of such similar workmen. It was also the case of the workmen that the payment of wages to them through different intermediaries was nothing but a legal camouflage.

(iv) The learned counsel submits that in the written statement filed by the Management, it was the specific case that there was no employer-employee relationship; rather, the concerned workmen were members of a Co-operative Society and it was the Co-operative Society, who had employed these workmen for carrying out certain work. It was also asserted that the provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the aforesaid Act of 1970) do not prohibit employment of contract labour altogether but it only regulates the employment of Contract Labour in certain establishments and provides its abolition in certain circumstances which would appear to be the ultimate object of the aforesaid Act of 1970. The further case of the Management was that the concerned workmen were never employed in the permanent and prohibited category of job of ‘Tyndal’ at any point of time. It was also asserted that the documents relied upon by the workmen were fake and no relief could be granted to the concerned workmen on the basis of such documents.

(v) The learned counsel submits that it was for the respondent-workmen to bring on record the notification regarding the work claimed to have been included in prohib