The main legal point established in the judgment is that contract labour can be eligible for regularisation if it is established that they were employed directly by the principal employer, and that the contract between the workmen and the principal employer was sham and nominal.

Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records on the file of the third respondent, to quash that portion directing regularisation from the date of retrenchment in the Award dated 13. 2005 and made in I.D. No. 311 of 2004 as confirmed by order dated 19. 2005 made in I.A. No. 239 of 2005 in I.D. No. 311 of 2004 by declaring and modifying the order as directing regularization of service of the petitioners from the date of completing 480 days of service with the second respondent.

W.P. No. 37547 of 2005 is filed by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited [for short, HPCL], a Public Sector Undertaking, against the Award dated 13. 2005 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal – cum – Labour Court, Chennai [for short, CGIT] in I.D. No. 311 of 2004 in granting relief of regularisation to the respondents 3 to 10 from the date of their alleged retrenchment with all attendant benefits including backwages quantified at 50%.

2. W.P. No. 12772 of 2006 is filed by eight workmen challenging the very same Award dated 13. 2005 as well as the order dated 19. 2005 made in I.A. No. 239 of 2005 and seeks for regularisation of their service from the date of completion of 480 days of service of their service, which was denied by the CGIT.

3. The writ petition filed by the Management of the HPCL was admitted on 211. 2005 and an interim stay was granted on the same day. Subsequently, when the workmen filed a petition for vacating the stay, this Court, vide order dated 24. 2006, directed the HPCL to pay Rs.6175/- to each of the workmen every month starting from October 2005 and that the arrears was to be made within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order and if the workmen are not restored to duty on or before 15. 2006, the HPCL was further directed to continue to pay monthly salaries in terms of Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [for short, I.D. Act].

4. In view of the interconnectivity between these two writ petitions, the matters were taken up together and a common order is being passed.

5. Heard the arguments of Mr. G. Masilamani, learned Advocate General appearing for M/s King and Patridge, representing the HPCL and Mr. K.V. Ananthakrushnan, learned counsel appearing for the workmen and perused the records. For the sake of convenience, the Management is referred to as HPCL and the eight individual workmen are referred to as the workmen.

6. It is the case of the workmen that they were engaged for cleaning toilets, house keeping, sweeping, maintaining the Lunch Room and bringing the lunch and tiffin to their offices at Egmore and Meenambakkam in Chennai and they have been working since the year 1989 in the case of four persons, in the case of one Vadivelu since 1985, in the case of one P.S. Iudayaraj since 1987, in the case of one A. Rajkumar since 1992 and in the case of one S. Egambaram since 1997.

7. The Government of India, vide their notification issued under Section 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 [for short, CLRA Act], on and from 012. 1976, prohibited employment of contract labour relating to sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching of buildings owned or occupied by establishments in respect of which the appropriate Government under the CLRA Act is the Central Government. Subsequently, the Supreme Court in Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union [1997 (9) SCC 377] held that even though there is no express provision in the CLRA Act for absorption of the contract labour when engagement of contract labour stood prohibited on publication of the notification under Section 10(1) of the Act, from that moment the principal employer cannot continue contract labour and direct relationship between them and the principal employer gets established between the workmen and the principal employer and in that view of the matter, for any