The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of considering various factors such as appointment, payment, authority to dismiss, disciplinary action, continuity of service, and extent of control and supervision in determining the employee-employer relationship.

Sujoy Paul, J.

1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenges the award of the Labour Court passed in Case No. 25/A/ID Act,/2000 (Ref.). The Labour Court No. 1, Gwalior by said award answered the reference in favour of the workman and opined that termination of workman was not legal and justified. The workman was directed to be reinstated without back wages.

2. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of this matter are that, the workman was discontinued from service w.e.f. 23.10.1990. He assailed this action before this Court by filing W.P. No. 2257/90. After hearing both the parties, this Court by order dated 26.4.1996 allowed the petition with cost. The employer, feeling aggrieved by this, filed LPA No. 321/96. This LPA was decided by Division Bench by judgment dated 1.5.1999.

3. A plain reading of the order passed in W.P and stand of employer before W.P. shows that the Respondent (workman) contended that he was employee of petitioner, National Fertilizers Ltd. (NFL), whereas the stand of NFL shows that there was no employee- employer relation between it and the workman. In LPA, this court opined that this is a disputed question of fact and this aspect of employee-employer relation cannot be determined in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the order of Writ court was set aside and the workman was relegated to avail the remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

4. In turn, the workman raised the dispute which was ultimately decided by impugned award. Criticizing the award, Mrs. Nidhi Patankar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that in view of statement of claim filed by the workman himself before the Labour Court, it is clear that he was not engaged by the NFL. She placed heavy reliance on para 5 of the written statement wherein the workman himself contended that he has worked with the NFL from 1.2.1989 to 23.10.1990 but payment was made to him by M/s. Guard Well Securities Consultant, a private contractor. She contended that in view of the order passed in LPA aforesaid, it was obligatory on the part of the labour Court to frame the specific issue relating to existence of employee and employer relation between the NFL and the workman. She contends that in absence of framing this issue, the award is liable to be interfered with. In addition, she submits that findings of the Court below are perverse. The statement of management witness has not been considered at all. However, during the course of argument, she fairly contended that so far the objection of petitioner regarding competence of State Labour Court is concerned, said objection being devoid of substance is not required to be dealt with. In other words, she fairly admitted that in view of Central Government's notification referred in para 4 of the award dated 3.7.1998, the State Government became "appropriate Government" and, therefore, she is not pressing the point regarding competence of "appropriate Government" (State Government) and jurisdiction of the Labour Court. She submits that the Court below has not applied the necessary test for the purpose of determining master-servant relation. She relied on : AIR1992 SC 457 (Dena nath and others Vs. National Fertilizers Ltd. and others) and : AIR 2006 SCW 409 (Anjaleem Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad).

5. Per contra, Shri B.P. Singh, learned counsel for the workman supported the award. He submits that the Labour Court has not committed any error of law which warrants interference by this Court. By taking this Court to the findings of the award, it is contended that the alleged contract made through contractor was a sham contract. For all practical purposes, the workman must be treated to be workman of NFL Ltd. He relied on : (2010) 1 SCC 47 (Director, Fisheries Terminal Department Vs. Bhikubhai Meghajibhai Chavda).

6. No other point is pressed by learned counsel for the parties.

7. I have heard the learned coun