JUDGMENT

Arindam Sinha, J. - Mr. Sahoo, learn ed advocate appears on behalf of petitioner-management. He submits, impugned is award dated 7th June, 2012, made ex-parte against his client. On query from Court he submits, there is no averment in the petition regarding notice had of impugned award and thereupon his client moving this Court by the writ petition.

2. He submits, the workman (opposite party no.1) was not an employee of his client. His services were obtained on contract basis through contractor (opposite party no.2). Said opposite party no.2 also did not appear before the labour Court.

3. He relies on judgment of the Supreme Court in Dena Nath v. National Fertilisers Ltd., reported in (1992) 1 SCC 695, paragraph 22. A passage from the paragraph is extracted and reproduced below.

'22. It is not for the High Court to inquire into the question and decide whether the employment of contract labour in any process, operation or in any other work in any establishment should be abolished or not. It is a matter for the decision of the government after considering the matter, as required to be considered under Section 10 of the Act. The only consequences provided in the Act where either