The main legal point established in the judgment is that the engagement of contract labour must be bona fide, and if found to be genuine, the contract labourers cannot be deemed as direct employees of the principal employer.

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J.

1. This judgment shall dispose of 12 writ petitions, which have been directed against the six separate Awards dated April 26,2005, made by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, chandigarh, whereby the termination of six workmen have been held to be illegal and consequently, the orders of reinstatement with continuity of service, but without any back wages, have been passed. Six petitions bearing c. W. P. Nos.20030, 20062, 20074, 20075, 20340 and 20138/2005 have been filed by the food Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as the Management Corporation), aggrieved against the orders of declaring the termination of the workmen as illegal and their reinstatement; and six petitions bearing C. W. P. Nos.19544 to 19549/2006 have been filed by six different workmen, aggrieved against the part of the orders denying them the relief of back wages. The Labour Court consolidated six references referred on the claims made by six different workmen, as in all the six cases, similar questions of fact and law were involved. Even the evidence led in all the six cases was the same. All the six workmen were appointed between August, 1986 to December, 1987 and they were posted at Buffer Godown, Dhand (Kurukshetra) Centre of the Management corporation and their services were terminated on March 30, 1989. Since in the writ petitions filed by the Management Corporation as well as the workmen, the same questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, these are being disposed of by this judgment.

2. The brief facts, which are necessary for the decision of these writ petitions, are given as under: the Management Corporation is a statutory body established under the Food corporation of India Act, 1964. It is engaged in procuring, processing and storing the food grains all over the country. At different places, it has its offices, procurement centers and storage depots. By the notification dated november 29, 1985 (Annexure P-l), issued by the Haryana Government, being the appropriate government at that time, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sec.10 (1) of the contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition)Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the CLRA act), prohibited employment of contract labour in 22 food storage depots, including all heads of the Food Corporation of India. The dhand Buffer Godown, in which all the six workmen worked, did not figure in the list of 22 prohibited centers. Thus, the Dhand Buffer godown was not a prohibited Centre. therefore, it was permissible for the management Corporation to engage or employ contract labour from the labour contractor for that Centre. With the said purpose, the management Corporation entere into an agreement dated January 3, 1986 (Annexure p-4) with the Ex-Servicemen Security Services (respondent No.3 herein) to supply security guards for their deployment at the Buffer godown, Dhand (Kurukshetra ). The said agreement was also produced before the Labour court as Exhibit M-2. It is pertinent to mention here that vide the Certificate dated July 4, 1988 (Annexure P-2), the Management Corporation got itself registered with the Labour commissioner (Central), Rohtak, under sec. 7 of the CLRA Act. Respondent No.3, the Labour Contractor, also got itself registered with the Labour Department and got a licence dated July 8, 1988 (Annexure P-3) under! sec. 12 of the CLRA Act for providing contract labour service to the Management corporation. Needless to state that the said licence was not valid for the prohibited Centre of employment notified by the appropriate government. The Dhand Store Depot was not the prohibited Centre. Therefore, for that centre, respondent No.3 got supplied the contract labour to the Management corporation. Accordingly, in pursuance of the; agreement (Annexure P-4), respondent No.3 appointed six workmen as security guards and directed them to report to Assistant Manager (Depot) for their duty. A copy of the appointment and posting letter dated J