JUDGMENT

RENU BHATNAGAR, J.

1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the Award dated 05.02.2011 passed by the learned Labour Court, Karkardooma Court , New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as, ‘Labour Court’) in the Industrial Dispute (‘ID’) No. 107/2006 titledSh. Ambrish Kumar versusIndraprastha Gas Ltd,whereby the learned Labour Court granted relief to the respondent reinstating him with continuity of service and full back wages from the date of termination till reinstatement, along with all consequential benefits. The learned Labour Court, on basis of the finding that the operating agreement between the Principal employer/ Indraprastha Gas Ltd (hereinafter referred to as, ‘IGL’)/petitioner and M/S Pratap Enterprises (hereinafter referred to as, ‘Contractor’) was a sham and bogus agreement, just to camouflage/deny the claimant the benefits of a regular employment, has held that the respondent was illegally terminated by the petitioner.

2. The impugned Award has been passed in a direct Claim filed by the respondent/workman under Section 10(4A) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ID Act’) before the learned Labour Court whereby the respondent had claimed that he was employed with the petitioner/IGL as Driveway Sales Man (‘DSM’) since 26.07.2001 on a salary of Rs. 3980/- per month and his services were terminated by the petitioner on 27.09.2005 illegally. That the petitioner/IGL had failed to pay the salary of September 2005, bonus and other basic service benefits such as leave, overtime despite demands. It was further stated that the Respondent along with other workmen had raised an Industrial Dispute being ID No. 99/2003 for regularising of his services with the management/petitioner and another dispute being ID No. 66/2003 regarding the general demand which are pending before the Industrial Tribunal. It was further stated that the respondent was terminated illegally by the petitioner/management on 27.09.2005 under Section 2(oo) read with Section 25F of the ID Act.

3. On the other hand, the petitioner/Management, in its written statement filed before the Labour Court, denied the existence of any employer-employee relationship between IGL/petitioner and the respondent alleging that the respondent was employed by M/S Pratap Enterprises, a third party contractor, engaged by the IGL under a valid contract. The petitioner further claimed to have obtained registration as a principal employer under the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, and stated that the Contractor had a valid licence in accordance with the said Act. It is stated that the respondent was engaged and working under the direct supervision and control of the Contractor and the respondent used to receive his salary from the Contractor who used to provide statutory benefits to the respondent such as leave, attendance etc. and the respondent was under the Contractor’s disciplinary control and supervision. It was further contended that all statutory benefits such as provident fund and ESI contributions, were provided by the contractor who used to deduct the same and deposit in its own account with the respective department. As per the information received from the Contractor, the respondent was duly paid his salary until the month he worked for the contractor along with bonus. It is stated that the contractor is not made a party to this dispute, for the reasons best known to the respondent/workman.

4. In rejoinder filed by the respondent before the learned Labour Court, the respondent reaffirmed his submissions and denied any knowledge regarding the Contractor.

5. After considering the pleadings of the parties, the learned Labour Court framed the following issues:

(i) “Whether there is relationship of employer and employee between the parties?

(ii) Whether the workman is entitled to reinstatement with consequential benefits including full back wages?

(iii) Relief.”

6. Thereafter, the respondent was examined a