ORDER

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J (Oral)

1. The petitioner vide the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks the following reliefs:

“G) Set-aside the Award dated 25.09.2017 passed by Labour Court No.IX inI.D.No.295/14 H) Pass such other order as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. The petitioner company, which is engaged in the business of manufacture, operation and maintenance of water purification. successfully participated in a Tender bearing no. IRCTC/RN/PROJ/2002/02 notified by the respondent no. 3 („respondent Corporation‟ hereinafter) in the year 2002, for operation and maintenance of a bottling plant for packaged drinking water plant situated in Nangloi, New Delhi.

3. Pursuant to the successful bidding, the parties i.e. the petitioner and the respondent Corporation entered into an agreement dated 17th July, 2003 for a period of 5 years. In the said agreement, the petitioner was defined as the contractor and the respondent Corporation was termed as the purchaser.

4. Thereafter, the petitioner entity engaged an agency namely M/s AVM Services (respondent no. 2) for the supply of contract labour and entered into a contract dated 1st August, 2003. Pursuant to the said contract, the respondent no. 1 („respondent workman‟ hereinafter) started working at the petitioner‟s plant.

5. In the year 2006, the respondent workman was terminated, leading to filing of a dispute bearing ID no. 295/2014 before the learned Labour Court. The learned Court examined the statement of claims and heard the matter, and thereafter passed the impugned award dated 25th September, 2017 thereby, directing the petitioner entity to compensate the respondent workman for the alleged illegal retrenchment.

6. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the impugned award is liable to be set aside since the learned Labour Court failed to take into consideration the entire facts and circumstances available on its record, and hence erred in passing the said award.

8. It is submitted that the impugned award suffers from illegality as the learned Labour Court followed a flawed and erroneous line of interpretation in holding the respondent Corporation as the principle employer and petitioner as the contractor for the purpose of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter “the Act”).

9. It is submitted that the learned Court below failed to appreciate that the petitioner and the other management except respondent no. 2 had no control over the payment of salaries to the respondent workman. Therefore, no liability arises on part of the petitioner.

10. It is submitted that the contract agreement dated 17th July, 2003, was misconstrued by the learned Labour Court as it failed to examine the terms of the same in totality.

11. It is submitted that the learned Labour Court erred in holding that Clause 7.3 of the agreement provides for sole liability upon the petitioner entity in case of wrongful termination as the respondent workman was hired by the respondent no. 2 and not the petitioner.

12. It is also submitted that the respondent workman was supplied to the respondent Corporation through a sub-contractor, i.e., respondent no. 2 and therefore, they should have been labeled as a contractor under the Act, and not the petitioner herein.

13. Therefore, in view of the foregoing submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the present petition may be allowed and impugned award may be set aside.

14. Per Contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent workman vehemently opposed the instant petition submitting to the effect that the impugned award has been passed in accordance with the law and hence, there is no infirmity thereto which makes the petition liable to be dismissed being devoid of any merits.

15. It is submitted that the failure of payment on part of the