J U D G M E N T

As common issues of law and facts are involved in these petitions, the same are being disposed of by a of a single judgment, as arguments were heard jointly in both these petitions.

2. Both the petitions arise out of award dated 02.07.2016, passed by the learned Presiding Judge, Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Shimla, (H.P.), in Reference No.89 of 2010, titled Himachal Pradesh Government Press Workers Union Shimla Versus the Controller Printing & Stationary Department, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-5.

3. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of these petitions are as under:-

On an industrial dispute having been raised by the workman, the following reference was sent by the Government for its answer to the learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court by the appropriate Government:-

‘1. “Whether the removal from service by verbal orders of 15 workers by the Controller Printing & Stationary Department HP Shimla without complying with provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, what relief, service benefits and compensation the 15 workers (as per list enclosed at Annexure A) are entitled to from the concerned employer?”

2. “Whether the above 15 workers are workers of Controller Printing & Stationary Department, HP Shimla and whether the contractor ship is mere camouflage/disguise of the Controller Printing & Stationary Department, HP Shimla in order to protect itself from the illegal act done by way of termination of services of 15 workers?”

4. The case of the petitioner-Union was that the Department of Printing and Stationary, Himachal Pradesh at Shimla was an industry in terms of Section 2-J of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It was also duly registered under the Factories Act, 1948. The Department performed the job work of Printing & Stationary, files and executive diaries, calendars of various Departments/Semi Government Undertakings and also was publishing the gazette notifications and debates of State legislative Assembly etc. According to the petitioner-Union, the respondent-Department for this purpose had engaged employees, workers, labourers directly on its rolls. According to the petitioner-Union, the Department of Labour & Employment permitted employing labourers through contractors in the trade of loading and unloading, housekeeping, cleaning, gardening and prohibited employment of contract labour in core activity/main/ principle nature of work and on machine under the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1948. The contention of petitioner-Union was that workers, whose details are given in Para-2 of the award passed by the learned Labour Court, stood engaged in the Department against the posts mentioned against their names from the dates also mentioned against their names, whose services were wrongly terminated w.e.f. 01.07.2009. As per the petitioner-Union, all the workers had completed more than 240 days continuous service in terms of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. From the very beginning, the workers were under day to day supervision of the respondent-Department. They were following the directions of the respondent-Department. Their attendance were being marked by the respondent-Department. Their leave was being sanctioned by the respondent-Department. The issuance of orders of performance of job was also was being given by the Department and their wages were also being paid by the Department. The workers were working on machines in printing, binding, offset, mono composing and technical work and they were also doing other activities and duties as were directed to do by the Department. The workers were marking their attendance in the attendance sheet maintained by the respondent-Department and which were counter-signed by the supervisors of the concerned Department. No appointment letters were issued to the workers and their engagement was on daily wage basis and though the Union had approached the Department for regularization of their s