The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of direct employment under the Contract Labour (Regulations and Abolition) Act, 1970, and the Industrial Disputes Act.

K.KANNAN, J.

1. The dispute & parties to the dispute Nine persons who claimed to be workmen under the Cement Corporation of India Limited (hereinafter called the management) sought for an adjudication through a reference that the termination purported to have been made by the third respondent Ram & Co. Cement Loading Contractor was really a termination made by the management and that it was not legally justified. The reference had an inbuilt mandate to also adjudicate whether the workmen were to be regarded as such under the management or as workmen under the contractor, third respondent. Before the alleged contract with the third respondent-Ram & Co., the workmen were purported to have been engaged by Hira Lal, the 2nd respondent and the same workmen had been transferred to the third respondent. The claim statements filed at the instance of all the 9 workmen contended that they were removed from their original jobs between April 8, 1993 to May 15, 1993 by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 at the first instance and at the second instance w.e.f January 1, 1994 onwards by the 3rd respondent. The workmen claimed that they had been in regular employment in Charkhi Dadri Cement Unit right from its inception from June 23, 1981. II. Employees in loading Section permitted to be employed under contract system, effect

2. The respondents No.2 and 3, who are the contractors remained ex parte before the Labour Court. The principal contest was entered only by the 1 st respondent, which shall be referred as management. It contended on behlf of the management that by virtue of tripartite agreement between the management, Workers Union and the Government, the Cement Wage Board permitted and sanctioned the use of contract labour, that permitted the job of cement loading and allowed works to operate through contract system. Clause 166 of the Award provided that all workers employed in the permitted occupations of loading (including packing) and unloading shall be given the same wages, be it bonus or other benefits, as had given to regular employees of the company. It was the contention of the management that a certificate of registration in Form II under the Contract Labour (Regulations and Abolition) Act, 1970 had been issued, permitting the management to employ three contractors for the purpose of loading and handling of cement among other activities. The 2nd respondent, Sh. Hira Lal had been issued with the licence for employing contract labourers engaged in loading cement and allied works in cement project. The licences issued subsequently to the Ram & Co., which is the third respondent, for doing similar work of cement loading and for employing 40 contract labourers had also been put on record. The contention of the management, therefore, was that all the workmen had been employed only through a properly sanctioned contract system and the management had no role to play in the matter of termination of service. According to the management, no relief was claimable against the management. III. The Labour Courts analysis and result (a) Nature of work that the workmen were alleged to be doing:

3. The Labour Court undertook, therefore, the exercise of finding whether the workmen had been only the workers under the contractors or they were to be deemed as direct employees of the management and whether the so-called contract itself was sham, intended to defeat the rights of the workmen. The Court found on evidence that the workmen had not been really employed merely in the process of loading and unloading but their services had been obtained for other activities connected directly with the management. A change of condition of service was sought to be made through the contractors by directing them to do more rigorous work of actual loading and unloading and therefore, the workmen could not be compelled to do work without prior notice. The workmen had set out the nature of activities which they were previously doing, which were as follows:

"(i) Check we