The central legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the employment relationship between the workman and the principal employer, considering the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the Contract Labour (Abolition and Regulation) Act, 1970, along with relevant constitutional provisions.

Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.

1. This petition has been filed by the workman against the award of the Labour Court, rejecting his claim for reinstatement with back wages.

2. Claim of the workman was that he was appointed on 6.6.1993 by the management of Guru Nanak Dev Thermal Plant, Bathinda, the unit of the Punjab State Electricity Board through contractors as Helper in the Coal Handling Plant. His work was to clear the chocked coal from Jalies, clearing of pit and coal handling belt. His services were terminated vide verbal order dated 9.10.2000. He was drawing a salary of Rs. 1,854/- per month. His work was of perennial nature and was necessary for the working of the plant. He worked from the date of appointment till termination of his services continuously, though contractors remained changing. The place of work belonged to the principal employer and supervision and control was of the principal employer, but the principal employer engaged contractors to avoid responsibilities inder the labour laws. Contract between principal employer and the contractor was a sham contract. The workman was thus to be treated as direct employee of the principal employer. Termination of services of the workman was mala fide, unfair labour practice, violative of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, `the Act) and Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution. The claim was contested by respondent Nos. 3 to 6 who were respondents 1 to 4 before the Labour Court, the principal employer, by submitting that the principal employer never employed the workman. The contract for execution of a job having been given to a contractor, claim of the workman, if any, was against the contractor. The principal employer had no control whatsoever in engaging the workman. The work was not a regular work and depended upon receipt of coal rakes. No relationship of employer and employee existed between the workman and the principal employer.

3. The contractor took the plea that the workman abandoned the job of his own after working for some days on daily wages basis. The Labour Court framed the following issues :

"1. Whether there exist relationship of employer and employee between the parties ? (OPW)

2. If issue No. 1 is proved whether services of workman stand validly terminated ? (OPR)

3. Whether claim of the workman is not maintainable ? (OPR)

4. Relief."

4. Under issue No. 1, it was held that the workman was not the employee of the principal employer, but only of the contractor and since the claim of the workman was only against the principal employer, the workman was not entitled to any relief. The Labour Court referred to the evidence on record. It was noticed that the workman appeared as WW1 and filed his affidavit Ex. W/1 and photo copies of identity cards Exs. W2 to W5 and PF subscription slips Ex.W6 to Ex.W/8. MW1 Ajaib Singh Malli appeared on behalf of the management and stated that gate pass was countersigned on account of engagement of the workman by the contractor. He also proved letter Ex. M/1. MW2 Er. Sat Pal Goyal deposed that the workman was never engaged by the PSEB and the work of coal handling plant was given on contract basis after inviting tenders and a written agreement was entered into with the contractor which was proved as Ex. M2 to Ex. M/11 for the period 1991-2000. MW3 Bhushan Kumar Prasher deposed that bills were passed by his office regarding the work done by the contractor and payment was made by cheque. The workman made a statement that he did not make any claim against the contractor.

5. Judgment of the Honble Supreme Court, in Secretary, Haryana State Electricity Board v. Suresh, AIR 1999 SC 1160 was distinguished by submitting that the contractor in that case was not a licensed contractor. Judgment of the Jharkhand High Court in Employers Relation to the management of Angarpathra Colliery of Bharat Coking Co. Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal No. (2) 2003(4) SCT 505, was distinguishe