ORDER

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J (Oral)

1. The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

“a. issue a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the award dated 29.5.2008 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Karkardooma Courts in I. D. No.

61/2002;

b. the Petitioners services may be regularized.

c. issue such other writ, order and direction, as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. The relevant facts leading to the filing of the instant petition are as under:

a. The building, namely Kanchanjunga was constructed in the year 1972 by its promoters M/s Kailash Nath & Associates which had engaged some persons to look after the security of the building maintenance and cleaning of the common area of the building and lift etc.

b. After some time, M/s Kailash Nath & Associates stopped the above said engagement and requested the flat owners to look after the same. Accordingly, in February, 1978, the flat owners formed an association known as Kanchanjanga Flat Owners Association (hereinafter “Association”), i.e., the respondent no. 1, to look after the security, maintenance and cleanliness of the common area of the building. Pursuant to the same, some personnel, i.e., the workmen represented through Kanchanjanga Building Employees Union herein were employed during the period of 1988-1996 as security guards and lift operators. Subsequently, in March, 1998 the above said association entered into an agreement with M/s Goliath Securities Pvt. Ltd., i.e., the respondent no. 2, to look after and provide necessary services on account of the security guards and lift operators, and the workmen were transferred through intermediary Contractors.

c. On 24th October, 2002, the workmen verbally requested the society management to regularize their services since they had been working for very long time under their control and the same was denied. Thereafter, the workmen raised an industrial dispute against the Association which was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal by the appropriate government vide reference dated 24th July, 2002. The workmen then filed a claim through their Union in Industrial Dispute bearing ID No. 61/2002, thereby, seeking regularization of their services in the direct management of the Association.

d. In the above said dispute, the learned Industrial Tribunal passed an award dated 29th May, 2008 (hereinafter “impugned award”) against the workmen and held that the petitioners are not entitled for any relief.

e. Being aggrieved by the above said impugned award, the workmen have approached this Court seeking setting aside of the same.

3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the workmen Union submitted that the impugned award has been passed erroneously and without taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case.

4. It is submitted that the learned Industrial Tribunal erred in not granting regularization to the workmen and the same is contrary to the settled position of law.

5. It is submitted that learned Industrial Tribunal erred in not considering that non-submission of sanctioned leave application, chargesheet or memo during the employment are not relevant factors to consider employee-

employer relationship.

6. It is submitted that the workmen were initially engaged by the respondent no. 1 and subsequently converted into contractual labour which amounts to ruse/camouflage employment to evade compliance with various beneficial legislations in order to deprive the workmen of the benefit thereunder.

7. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal erred in not considering that the respondent no. 2 was merely a broker or an agent of respondent no. 1. It is also submitted that nothing was brought on record by the respondents to indicate that the society at the relevant time was registered as a principal employer under the Contract Labour (Regu