Industrial Tribunal is competent to exercise jurisdiction over contract labour system.

T. Meenakumari, J.

1. The writ petition is for the issue of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records from the first respondent relating to I.D. No. 86 of 1985 and quash the award passed by the first respondent and consequently direct the second respondent-Bank to reinstate the petitioners with back wages, continuity of service and award costs.

2. The writ petition is filed by the petitioner-Association. The case of the petitioner is that the forty-seven workers were employed with the second respondent-Bank from February, 1977 as punch operators through the alleged contractors who are the members of the petitioner's Association. As they demanded that they should be regularised in the services of the second respondent/bank, they were suddenly denied employment from 27.9.1984. They were forced to raise a dispute before the Conciliation Officer and the same was referred to the first respondent in I.D. No. 86 of 1985. It is also averred that before the Tribunal, the petitioners filed a claim statement wherein they have stated that they were employed as Punch Operators from the year 1977. The second respondent entrusted the work of data processing to Data Consultants who brought the data processing machine to the Head Office of the second respondent bank and the work was done by the 47 workers. It is also stated that the alleged contractors would change but the 47 workers who were employed for data processing work remained the same. Hence they contended that the so-called contract system was merely a camouflage. It is also stated that they were really employed by the second respondent Bank through the so-called contractors in order to avoid the legal obligations like giving the benefits that are to be paid to bank employees under the various bipartite settlements. It is also stated that the second respondent has a control over the petitioners and electronic data processing work is an integral part of the bank's business.

3. The second respondent has resisted the claim and the evidence has been adduced by both the sides.

4. The petitioners herein have claimed in the claim statement that the so-called contract system viz., asking A.V.T. Software Research Co., Ltd., to undertake the work is merely a farce. If this contract system was a genuine one, every time a contractor changed, he would have brought his own men.

5. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners Ms. Vaigai that the petitioners are the direct employees of the respondent Bank and merely because they have demanded bonus and formed a Union, their services have been dispensed with and it is a clear case of victimisation. She has further argued that the Tribunal has not gone into the question whether the contract is sham or genuine and she has further argued that the findings of the Tribunal that it has no jurisdiction or authority to deal with any dispute relating to Contract Labour Act is only perverse. The learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Gujarat Electricity Board, Ukai v. Hind Mazdoor Sabha 1995 I CLR 967 S.C. to substantiate her contention that the Industrial Tribunal has got jurisdiction to decide whether the contract is sham or genuine. It is only if the adjudicator comes to the conclusion that the contract is sham, then he will have jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. If however he comes to the conclusion that the contract is genuine, he may refer the workmen to the appropriate Government for abolition of the contract labour under Sec. 10 of the Act and keep the dispute pending. It is further argued that even after the contract labour system is abolished, the direct employees of the principal employer can raise an industrial dispute for absorption of the ex-contractor's workman and the adjudicator on the material placed before him can decide as to why and how many of the workmen should be absorbed and on what terms.

6. On the other hand, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the respond