JUDGMENT : R.B. Mehrotra, J. By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner Indian Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative Ltd., a public Undertaking, has challenged the award of the Industrial Tribunal (1), Allahabad, dated 25-6-1990 published on 7th July, 1990 delivered in adjudication Case No. 14 of 1987. The Industrial Tribunal by means of the aforesaid award has held that 88 workmen, who raised the industrial dispute, were workmen of the Indian Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative Ltd., Phulpur, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as IFFCO) and their services have been illegally terminated, they are entitled to be re-instated in service with back wages. 2. An industrial dispute was raised by 88 workers against their wrongful termination of service claiming themselves to be the workers of IFFCO; when conciliatory efforts failed, the State Government referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. The terms of the reference were in the following words: Seva Yojako ke nam Bibad uthane vale Panch Sharamik Pratinidhiyon ke nam 1. Sri Ahil Kumar Mishra Thekhe dar dwyra Indian Farmer Fertilizer Co-operative Ltd. Phulpur Zila Al lahabad. 1. Ram Jas 2. Lai Chandra 3. Vishnu Lal 4. Brij Lal 5. Sushil Kumar Tewari 2. Indian Farmers' Fertilizer Co operative Ltd. Phulpur, Allahabad 38, Bakshi Bazar Allahabad. Audyogik Bibad (do) ke bibran kya Seva Yojoko dwara sangalon parishisht 'ka' me ullikhit apne 88 shramiko ko unke nam ke sammukh ankit tithiyom ke karya na dena uchit tatha. Athaba baidhanik hai? Yadi nahi, to sambandhit shramik kya labh anutosh (relief) pane ka adhikari hai, tatha anya kin vivrano sahit? 3. In the reference order, the names of two persons were mentioned in the column of employer. First was Sri Anil Kumar Misra, contractor through IFFCO, Phulpur, Allahabad and second was Indian Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative Ltd., Phulpur, Allahabad. 4. I have heard Sri Sudhir Chandra, the learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri K.P. Agrawal, the learned Senior Advocate for the Respondent workmen Sri S.P. Kapoor has appeared for the contractor, who has also been arrayed as Respondent, and has supported the submissions of Sri Sudhir Chandra. 5. Sri Sudhir Chandra has made the following submissions for challenging the award: (1) The award is completely outside the scope of reference. 5. Sri Sudhir Chandra has made the following submissions for challenging the award: (1) The award is completely outside the scope of reference. The reference was confined to the question as to whether the employer have wrongly terminated the services of 88 workmen whose 4st was annexed with the reference order and the relief which the workmen were entitled to get. The question that 88 workmen were employees, of IFFCO alone was completely outside the scope of reference, as such the Industrial Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in holding that 88 workmen were employees of IFFCO. (2) The Tribunal has erred in law in arriving at a finding that 88 workmen were employees of IFFCO, the said finding has been recorded completely ignoring the material documentary evidence brought on record by the employer. The submission precisely is that the employer summoned the file from the Payment of Wages Authority wherein an application was moved on behalf of same 88 workmen claiming payment of wages and arraying both General Manager of IFFCO and Sri Anil Kumar Misra, the Contractor as opposite parties in the aforesaid application. The Tribunal completely ignored the said important document in arriving at a finding that 88 workmen were employees of IFFCO. (3) The application moved on behalf of 88 workmen to Payment of Wages Authority wherein they admitted themselves to be the workmen of Sri Anil Kumar Misra, the contractor, was a categorical admission by the workmen and the Tribunal could not have bye-passed the said important admission made by the workmen in arriving at a finding holding the workmen to be workers of the IFFCO. (4) The finding recorded by the Tribunal holding that 88 workmen were employees of IFFCO is patently perverse and is based on misreading of evidence and drawing wrong conclusions from the documents and the evidence produced by the Petitioners. The submission is that the findings recorded by the Industrial Tribunal are based on inadmissible evidence, misreading of pleadings ignoring relevant evidence and is based on conjectures and surmises. (5) The Tribunal has wrongly placed burden of proof on IFFCO for proving that 88 workmen were not their employees. The burden was on the workmen to positively prove that they were employee of the IFFCO The contrary approach of the Tribunal is patently vitiated in law, and has resulted in wrong conclusions by the Tribunal. (5) The Tribunal has wrongly placed burden of proof on IFFCO for proving that 88 workmen were not their employees. The burden was on the workmen to positively prove that they were employee of the IFFCO The contrary approach of the Tribunal is patently vitiated in law, and has resulted in wrong conclusions by the Tribunal. (6) The Tribunal was wholly unjustified in arriving at a finding that all workmen have worked 240 days continuously. There was absolutely no material on record to prove that all workmen have worked continuously for more than 240 days. In the context each workman's case was to be individually examined for arriving at the conclusion that each workman has continuously completed 240 days as workman of the principal employer. There being no material on record to that effect, the finding recorded by the Tribunal is vitiated in law. 6. The learned Counsel for the Respondents Sri K.P. Agrawal has countered the aforesaid submissions and has submitted that contract labour can be engaged only strictly in accordance with the provisions of Contract Labour (Regulations of Abolition) Act, 1970 and if the employer fails to prove that they employed contract labour strictly in accordance with the Contract Labour (Regulations of Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 1970 Act), the workmen shall be deemed to be the employees of the principal employer. Sri Agrawal has submitted that the burden of proving that the contract labour vas employed by the IFFCO strictly in accordance with the 1970 Act was on IFFCO and IFFCO having miserably failed to show that the contract labours were working strictly in accordance with the provisions of the 1970 Act and the rules framed there under as such the necessary corollary was that the workmen should be held to be the employees of the IFFCO and even if it is found that there is some error in the award given by the Industrial Tribunal, the same could not be interfered with in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the award can be sustained on other grounds submitted by the counsel for the Respondents. 7. 7. At the outset, Sri Sudhii Chandra has contended that the terms of reference for adjudication was confined to the question as to whether the employer referred to in the reference, namely, the contractor Sri And Kumar Misra and IFFCO have wrongly terminated the services of 88 workmen. Under the provisions of the 1970 Act the IFFCO was only a principal employer and in the reference the name of IFFCO was mentioned only in that context. Since the name of Anil Kumar Misra was also mentioned as employer in the reference, it was clear that both Sri Anil Kumar Misra and IFFCO were treated as employers of the workmen which was necessary as under the 1970 Act the responsibility of making payment of wages is also of the principal employer if the contractor fails to make payment of wagts. The terms of reference of adjudication was only whether the services of the workmen had been wrongly terminated by the employer and for what relief the workmen were entitled. Within the scope of the aforesaid reference, there was no scope for holding the workmen to be employees of IFFCO alone. In support of his submission, Sri Sudhir Chandra has cited Steel Authority of India v. V.S. Yadav, Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal 1978 55 FLR 268 and U.P. Electric Supply Co., Ltd. Vs. The Workmen of S.N. Choudhary, Contractors and Another, AIR 1960 SC 818 . 8. In the case of Steel Authority of India (supra), a Divison Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, on the facts of the case, held that the question whether the workmen were employees of the Petitioner or not was not a question germain to the order of reference which was only in respect of raise in wages. In this case, on the facts of the case, it was held that the workmen were employees of the contractor and the dispute was not on a question as to whether the workmen were employees of the contractor or the principal employer. The dispute was in respect of raise in wages. In the aforesaid background, the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the workmen were employees of the contractor. The dispute was in respect of raise in wages. In the aforesaid background, the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the workmen were employees of the contractor. The Divison Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in its turn has relied on the Supreme Court decision in U.P. Electric Supply Company Ltd. v. S.M. Chaudhary, In the Electric Supply Company's case (supra), the facts were that before the Conciliation Board, the workmen raised four grievances, namely- (i) For non-grant of bonus in the years 1953-54 and 1954-55. (ii) Non grant of festival holidays. (iii) Non fixation of minimum wages of these workmen at par with the workmen employed by the company, and (iv) Non abolition of contract system. The efforts of conciliation failed and thereupon the Government of Uttar Pradesh made a reference to the Industrial Tribunal under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act (Act No. 28 of 1947). In this reference only first three points were referred out of the four which were before the Conciliation Board, namely, those points were referred which were relating to bonus, festival holidays and payment of wages to those workmen at par with the workmen of the Company. The fourth point which was raised before the Conciliation Board, namely, non abolition of contract system was not referred. The parties to this reference were two, namely (i) the contractor and (ii) the workmen. In the aforesaid facts the Tribunal framed an issue as under: Are the workmen concerned employees of the U.P. Electric Supply Company Ltd. Lucknow or of M/s. S.M. Chaudhary, Contractor? 9. The Tribunal in its award held that the workmen concerned were the workmen of the Company. In the aforesaid facts, the Supreme Court held that the said finding was outside the jurisdiction of reference. 10. Both the aforesaid decisions are distinguishable on the face of it. In the present case, the reference order is wide enough to include the consideration of the question whether the workmen were employees of IFFCO or not? In the reference order both the employers are mentioned, namely, the IFFCO and the Contractor. The reference order is widely worded on the question of the scope of relief. In the present case, the reference order is wide enough to include the consideration of the question whether the workmen were employees of IFFCO or not? In the reference order both the employers are mentioned, namely, the IFFCO and the Contractor. The reference order is widely worded on the question of the scope of relief. In the present case the dispute raised by the workmen from the very beginning was that they were claiming themselves to be the workmen of the IFFCO and were claiming that they were being wrongly shown by the IFFCO as employees of the Contractor. They alleged that all of them worked continuously for more than 240 days and their services have been wrongly terminated without following the mandatory provisions of Section 6-N of the U P. Industrial Disputes Act. In the aforesaid background the reference order is to be read which on the face of it is wide enough to include the question as to whether the employees were workmen of IFFCO and to what relief they were entitled. It was open to the Tribunal to arrive at a finding that the workmen were employees of the Contractor or the employees of the IFFCO and to what relief they were entitled either from the IFFCO or the Contractor. The Tribunal was within its jurisdiction to take a view that the workmen were employees of the IFFCO and were entitled to be declared as such and since their services were terminated in contravention of the provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, they were entitled to be treated continuing as workmen of IFFCO and were entitled for back wages. Sri K.P. Agrawal, the learned Counsel for the workmen, has relied upon the following cases: (i) The Central Bank of India Ltd. Vs. P.S. Rajagopalan etc., AIR 1964 SC 743 : (ii) Shri Ambica Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. S.B. Bhatt and Another, AIR 1961 SC 970 11. In both these decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if a wider question is referred for adjudication, the Industrial Tribunal can always decide the incidental question. What are the incidental questions, is dealt with in Ambika Mill's case. Ltd. Vs. S.B. Bhatt and Another, AIR 1961 SC 970 11. In both these decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if a wider question is referred for adjudication, the Industrial Tribunal can always decide the incidental question. What are the incidental questions, is dealt with in Ambika Mill's case. The relevant portion from the said decision is reproduced below: In determining the scope of these incidental questions, care must be taken to see that under the guise of deciding incidental matters, the limited jurisdiction is not unreasonably or unduly extended. Care must also be taken to see that scope of this incidental questions is not unduly limited so as to affect or impair the limited jurisdiction conferred on the authority...Now if the claim is made by an employee on the ground of alleged illegal deduction or alleged delay in payment of wages, several relevant facts would fall to be considered. Is the applicant an employee of the firm? And that refers to the subsistence of the relation between employer and the employee. 12. In Central Bank of India's case (supra) the Hori'ble Supreme Court while interpreting the scope of Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act held as under: Let us then refer to the words used in Section 33C(2) in order to decide what would be its true scope and effect on a fair and reasonable construction...it is clear that if a workman's right to receive the benefit is disputed that may have to be determined by the Labour Court. Before proceeding to compute the benefit in terms of money, the Labour Court inevitably has to deal with the question as to whether the workman has a right to receive that benefit. If the said right is not disputed, nothing more needs to be done and the Labour Court can proceed to compute the value of the benefit in terms of money; but if the said right is disputed, the Labour Court must deal with that question and decide whether the workman has the right to receive the benefit as alleged by him.... 13. From the above decisions, it is clear that the Industrial Tribunal has a power to decide the incidental questions if a larger question is before it. In the present case, the question referred to before the Tribunal was whether the workmen were employees of the employers named in the reference. 13. From the above decisions, it is clear that the Industrial Tribunal has a power to decide the incidental questions if a larger question is before it. In the present case, the question referred to before the Tribunal was whether the workmen were employees of the employers named in the reference. Both the employers were named in the reference, namely, the IFFCO and the Contractor Sri Anil Kumar Misra. It was within the scope of the reference that the Tribunal can come to a conclusion that the workmen were the employees of IFFCO alone. Even otherwise the background under which the dispute was referred for adjudication has also to be taken into consideration. In the present case the workmen had throughout contended that they were employees of IFFCO and were wrongly shown as employees of the Contractor. On the other hand the IFFCO had throughout contended that the workmen were employees only of the Contractor. In the aforesaid background, the dispute was referred naming both IFFCO and the Contractor as employers and the wordings of the reference were as to whether the employees were workmen of the employers. The Industrial Tribunal was within its scope to decide the question whether the workmen were employees of the IFFCO. Accordingly lam clearly of the opinion that the Industrial Tribunal was within its jurisdiction to hold that the workmen were employees of the IFFCO and said finding was within the scope of adjudication of reference referred to the Industrial Tribunal. 14. Having cleared the scope of jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal, I propose to analyse the provisions of the 1970 Act. 15. The employment of contract labour has been condemned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various decisions. Reference may be made to a recent decision, Sankar Mukherjee and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, (1990) SCC 668 Supp. In this decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has condemned the practice of Public Sector Companies for engaging workmen through contract labour. The relevant portion from the said judgment is reproduced as under: It is surprising that more than forty years after the independence the practice of employing labour through contractors by big companies including public sector companies is still being accepted as a normal feature of labour-employment. There is no security of service to the workmen and their wages are far below than that of the regular workmen of the company. There is no security of service to the workmen and their wages are far below than that of the regular workmen of the company. This Court in The Standard-vacuum Refining Co. of India Ltd. Vs. Its Workmen and Others, AIR 1960 SC 948 , and Catering Cleaners of Southern Railway Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, (1987) 1 SCC 700 , has disapproved the system of contract labour holding it to be 'archaic', 'primitive' and of 'baneful nature'. The system, which is nothing but an improved version of bounded-labour, is sought to be abolished by the Act. The Act is an important piece of social legislation for the welfare of laborers and has to be liberally construed. The statement, objects and reasons of the 1970 Act reads as under: The system of employment of contract labour lends itself in various abuses. The question of its abolition has been under the consideration of Government for a long time. In the Second Five years Plan, the Planning Commission made certain recommendations, namely, undertaking of studies to ascertain the extent of the problem of contract labour, progressive abolition of system and improvement of service conditions of contract labour where the abolition was not possible. 16. Thus the Act was enacted with a view to abolish wherever possible or practicable the employment of contract labour. The proposed Bill aimed at abolition of contract labour but permitted engagement of contract labour only in a very limited sphere and in a most regulated manner. The provisions of the Act are to be analysed with a view to examine as to whether in the present case the engagement of contract labour was strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed there under. If on analysis of the various provisions, it is found that in the present case, there was breach or the provisions of the 1970 Act, the consequence is bound to be that the workmen, who are alleged to be employed as contract labours, will be treated as workmen of the factory itself. 17. If on analysis of the various provisions, it is found that in the present case, there was breach or the provisions of the 1970 Act, the consequence is bound to be that the workmen, who are alleged to be employed as contract labours, will be treated as workmen of the factory itself. 17. Section 1(4) of the 1970 Act provides: (4) It applies- (a) to every establishment in which twenty or more workmen are employed or were employed on any day of the preceding twelve months as contract labour; (b) to every contractor who employes or who employed on any day of the preceding twelve months twenty or more workmen. Proviso to that section is not relevant. Section 1(5) provides: (a) It shall not apply to establishments in which work only of an intermittent or casual nature is performed. (b) If a question arises whether work performed in an establishment is of an intermittent or casual nature, the appropriate Government shall decide that question after consultation with the Central Board or, as the case may be, a State Board, and its decision shall be final. Explanation--For the purpose of this Sub-section, work performed in an establishment shall not be deemed to be of an intermittent nature- (i) if it was performed for more than one hundred and twenty days in the preceding twelve months, or (ii) if it is of a seasonal character and is performed for more than sixty days in a year. 18. In the present case it is not disputed that the 1970 Act was applicable to IFFCO. 19. u/s 2(b) of the 1970 Act, workman is defined: (b) a workman shall be deemed to be employed as "contract labour" in or in connection with the work of an establishment when he is hired in or in connection with such work by or through a contractor, with are without the knowledge of the principal employer. Section 2(c) defines 'contractor': (c) "Contractor", in relation to an establishment, means a person who undertakes to produce a given result for the establishment, other than a mere supply of goods of articles of manufacture to such establishment, through contract labour or who supplies contract labour for any work of the establishment and includes a subcontractor. Section 2(c) defines 'contractor': (c) "Contractor", in relation to an establishment, means a person who undertakes to produce a given result for the establishment, other than a mere supply of goods of articles of manufacture to such establishment, through contract labour or who supplies contract labour for any work of the establishment and includes a subcontractor. Section 2(e) defines 'establishment': "(e) "establishment" means- (i) any office or department of the Government or a local authority, or (ii) any place where any industry, trade, business, manufacture or occupation is carried on. Section 2(g) defines 'principal employer': "(g) "principal employer" means- (i) in relation to any office or department of the Government or a local authority the head of that: office or department or such other officer as the Government of the local authority, as the case may be, may specify in this behalf; (ii) in a factory, the owner or occupier of the factory and where a person has been named as the manager of the factory under the Factories Act, 1048 (63 of 1948), the person so named. Section 12 of the 1970 Act provides that only a licensed contractor can be employed for the purposes of engaging contract labour. The provisions are relevant for the controversy so they are being reproduced below: 12. Licensing of contractors-- (1) With effect from such date as the appropriate Government may. by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint no contractor to whom this Act applies, shall undertake or execute any work through contract labour except and in accordance with a licence issued in that behalf by the licensing officer. (2) Subject to the provisions of this Act a licence under Sub-section (1) may contain such conditions including, in particular, conditions as to hours of work, fixation of wages and other essential amenities in respect of contract labour as the appropriate Government may deem fit to impose in accordance with the rules, if any, made u/s 35 and shall be issued on payment of such fees and on the deposit of such sum, if any as security for the due performance of the conditions as may be prescribed. Section 14 of the 1970 Act provides for amendment in the licence if occasion arises: 14 Revocation, suspension and amendment of licences-- (1) If the licensing officer is satisfied on a reference made to him in this behalf or otherwise, that- (a) a licence granted u/s 12 has be obtained by misrepresentation or suppression of any material fact, or (b) the holder of a licence has, without reasonable cause, failed to comply with the conditions subject to which the licence has been granted or has contravened any of the provisions of this Act or the rules made there under. then without prejudice to any other penalty to which the holder of the licence may be liable under this Act, the licensing officer may after giving the holder of the licence an opportunity of showing cause, revoke or suspend the licence or forfeit the sum, if any, or any portion thereof deposited as security for the due performance of the conditions subject to which the licence has been granted. (2) Subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf, the licensing Officer may vary or amend a licence granted u/s 12. Sections 20 and 21 provides the liability of principal employer and his responsibility for ensuring payment of wages. 20. Liability of principal employer in certain cases-- (1) If any amenity required to be provided u/s 16, Section 17, Section 18 or Section 19 for the benefit of the contract labour employed in an establishment is not provided by the contractor within the time presented therefore, such amenity shall be provided by the principal employer within such time as may be prescribed. (2) All expenses incurred by the principal employer in providing the amenity may be recovered by the principal employer from the contractor cither by deduction from any amount payable to the contractor under any contract or as a debt payable by the contractor. 21. Responsibility for payment of wages.-- (1) A contractor shall be responsible for payment of wastes to each worker employed by him as contract labour and such wages shall be paid before the expiry of such period as may be prescribed. 21. Responsibility for payment of wages.-- (1) A contractor shall be responsible for payment of wastes to each worker employed by him as contract labour and such wages shall be paid before the expiry of such period as may be prescribed. (2) Every principal employer shall nominate a representative duly authorised by him to be present at the time of disbursement of wages by the contractor and it shall be the duty of such representative to certify the amounts paid as wages in such manner as may be prescribed. (3) It shall be the duty of the contractor to ensure the disbursement of wages in the presence of the authorised representative of the principal employer. (4) In case the contractor fails to make payment of wages within the prescribed period or makes short payment, then the principal employer shall be liable to make payment of wages in full or the unpaid balance due, as the case may be, to the contract labour employed by the contractor and recover the amount so paid from the contractor either by deduction from any amount payable to the contractor under any contract or as a debt payable by the contractor. Section 23 of the 1970 Act provides that if any of the provisions of the Act or the rules framed there under or any of the conditions of the licence granted under the Act are violated, such as act is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both, and in the case of a continuing contravention with an additional fine which may extend to one hundred rupees for every day during which such contravention continues after conviction for the first such contravention. Section 7 of the 1970 Act provides that every principal employer of an establishment to which the Act applies shall, within such period as the appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, fix in this behalf with respect to establishments generally or with respect to any class of them, make an application to the registering officer in the prescribed manner for registration of the establishment, and if the application for registration is complete in all respects, the registering officer shall register the establishment and issue to the principal employer of the establishment a certificate of registration containing such particulars as may be prescribed. 'Prescribed' has been defined to mean that as prescribed under the rules. Rule 18 of the Rules framed under the Act provides: 18. Grant of certificate of registration-- (1) The certificate of registration granted under Sub-section (2) of Section 7 shall be in Form II. (2) Every certificate of registration granted under Sub-section (2) of Section 7 shall contain the following particulars, namely- (a) the name and address of the establishment; (b) the maximum number of workmen to be employed as contract labour in the establishment; (c) the type of business, trade, industry, manufacture or occupation which is carried on in the establishment; (d) such other particulars as may be relevant to the employment of contract labour in the establishment. (3) The registering officer shall maintain a register in Form III showing the particulars of establishments in relation to which certificate of registration have been issued by him. (4) If, in relation to an establishment there is any change in the particulars specified in the certificate of registration, the principal employer of the establishment shall intimate to the registering officer, within thirty days from the date when such change takes place, the particulars of, and the reasons for, such change. Rule 25 provides the Forms and terms and conditions of licence. The said rule is also relevant for the controversy, as such is being reproduced below for convenient reference: 25. Forms and terms and conditions of licence.-- (1) Every licence granted under Sub-section (1) of Section 12 shall be in Form VI. (2) Every licence granted under Sub-rule (I) or renewed under Rule 29 shall be subject to the following conditions, namely-- (i) the licence shall be non-transferable; (ii) the number of workmen employed as contract labour in the establishment shall not, on any day, exceed the maximum number specified in the licence; (iii) save as provided in these rules, the fees paid for the grant, or as the case may be, for renewal of the licence shall be non-refundable. (iv) the rotes of wages payable to the workmen by the contractor shall not be less than the rates prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (If of 1948), for such employment where applicable, and where the rates have been fixed by agreement, settlement or award, not less than the rate so fixed; ... (iv) the rotes of wages payable to the workmen by the contractor shall not be less than the rates prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (If of 1948), for such employment where applicable, and where the rates have been fixed by agreement, settlement or award, not less than the rate so fixed; ... (vii) the licensee shall notify any change in the number of workmen or the conditions of work to the licensing officer; (viii) the licensee shall, within fifteen clays of the commencement and completion of each contract work submit a return to the Inspector, appointed u/s 28 of the Act, intimating the actual date of the commencement or, as the case may be, completion of such contract work in Form VI-A; (ix) a copy of the licence shall be displayed prominently at the premises where the contract work is being carried on; ... . Rule 82(1) provides that "every contractor shall send half yearly return in Form XXIV (in duplicate) so as to reach the Licensing Officer concerned not later than 33 days from the dose of the half year", and Rule 82(2) provides that every principal employer of a registered establishment shall send annually a return in Form XXV (in duplicate) so as to reach the Registering Officer concerned not later than the 15th February following the end of the year to which it relates. Forms XIV and XV are also relevant for the present controversy, as such the same are being reproduced for convenient reference: FORM XXIV Return to be sent by the Contractor to the Licensing Officer. Half-Year Ending ... . 1. Name and address of the Contractor 2. Name and address of the establishment. 3. Name and address of the Principal employer, 4. Duration of contract: From ...to ... . 5. No. of days during the half year on which-- (a) the establishment of the Principal employer had worked ... ... . (b) the contractor's establishment had worked..... 6. Maximum number of contract labour employed on any days during the half year: Men Women Children Total 7. (i) Daily hours of work and spread over-- (ii)(a) Whether weekly holidays observed and on what day-- (b) If so, whether it was paid for-- (iii) No. of Man-hours of overtime worked— 8. Number of man-days worked by-- Men Women Children Total 9. Amount of wages paid- Men Women Children Total 10. (i) Daily hours of work and spread over-- (ii)(a) Whether weekly holidays observed and on what day-- (b) If so, whether it was paid for-- (iii) No. of Man-hours of overtime worked— 8. Number of man-days worked by-- Men Women Children Total 9. Amount of wages paid- Men Women Children Total 10. Amount of deductions from wages, if any Men Women Children Total 11. Whether the following have been provided- (i) Canteen ... (ii) Rest Rooms ... (iii) Drinking Water ... (iv) Creches ... (v) First Aid ... (If the answer is 'yes' state briefly standards provided) Place ....... Date ....... Signature of Contractor FORM XXV Annual Return of principal Employer to be sent to the Registering Officer. Year ending 31st December. 1. Full name and address of the principal Employer. 2. Name of Establishment. (a) District (b) Postal Address (c) Nature of operation/industry/work carried on. 3. Full name of the Manager or person responsible for supervision and control of the establishment. 4. Number of contractors who worked in the establishment during the year (Give details in annexure). 5. Nature of work/operations on which contract labour was employed. 6. Total number of days during the year on which contract labour was employed, 7. Total number of man days worked by contract labour during the year. 8. Maximum number of workmen employed directly on any day during the year. 9. Total number of days during the year an when direct labour was employed. 10. Total number of mandays worked by directly employed workmen. 11. Change, if any, in the management of the establishment, its location, or any other particulars furnished to the Registering Officer in the application for Registration indicating also the date. Place ...... Date ....... Principal Employer. 20. Form XXIV is a Form which a contractor is required to send to the Licensing Officer wherein in column No. 6', it is provided that maximum number of contract labour employed on any day during the half year should be mentioned and column No. 8' of the said return requires that number of man days worked by different contract labour should be mentioned. 21. Form No. XXV is to be maintained by the principal employer and is to be sent to the Registering Officer. In this form in column 5' the nature of work operations on which contract labour was employed is to be mentioned by the principal employer. 21. Form No. XXV is to be maintained by the principal employer and is to be sent to the Registering Officer. In this form in column 5' the nature of work operations on which contract labour was employed is to be mentioned by the principal employer. In column No. 6' the total number of days during the year on which contract labour was employed is to be mentioned. In column 7', total number of mandays worked by contract labour during the year is to be mentioned. In column No. 8', maximum number of workmen employed directly on any day during the year is to be mentioned. In column No. 9', the total number of days during the year on which direct labour was employed is to be mentioned. In column No. 10' total number of mandays worked by directly employed workmen is to be mentioned. In Annexure to the aforesaid form, in column No. 3', the nature of work for which the contract labour is employed is to be mentioned. 22. Other forms which are relevant for the purposes of the present controvery are Forms XIII to XIX, Form XIII is to be maintained under Rule 75 i.e., Register of Workmen employed by the contractor. In this form in column No. 2', the name and surname of workmen is to be mentioned. Form XIX is a form to be maintained under Rule 76 which provides for giving an employment card to every workman. Form No. XV is a form which again required to be maintained under Rule 77 whereby a workman is to be given service certificate by the contractor. Form XVI is again a form required to be maintained under Rule 78(1)(a)(i) in regard to Muster Roll. Form XVII under Rule 78(I)(a)(i) is a register of wages which is to be maintained, and for this form also the name of the workmen, the serial number in the register of the workmen, the designation/nature of work done and number of days worked by the workmen are required to be mentioned. Form XVIII is a composite form for Forms No. XVI and XVII together. The Contractor can maintain either Forms No. XVI and XVII separately or one Form in Form No. XVIII. Form XIX is also a form required to be maintained under Rule 78(1)(b). In this form wage slips are to be maintained. Form XVIII is a composite form for Forms No. XVI and XVII together. The Contractor can maintain either Forms No. XVI and XVII separately or one Form in Form No. XVIII. Form XIX is also a form required to be maintained under Rule 78(1)(b). In this form wage slips are to be maintained. In this form the name and address of the contractor, the nature of location of the work, the name and father's/husband's name of the workman and the details for which the workman has worked during the month, week or fortnight has to be mentioned This form is also required to be maintained by the Contractor. 23. These are the relevant provisions under the 1970 Act and the rules framed there under and the forms required to be maintained under the rules which indicate the necessity of maintaining the minutest details in respect of contract labour. 24. An analysis of the various rules and the forms required to be maintained by the contractor and the factory owner, show that contractor as well as the factory owner are in possession of the details of the contract labour employed in the factory, these details are required to be maintained for purposes of ensuring that no malpractices are resorted by the contractor and the contact labours are engaged only strictly in accordance with the provisions of the 1970 Act which guaranteed equal payment of wages to the contract labour which the regular employees of the factory are getting as well as other beneficiary measures arc required to be observed. Unless both the contractor and the factory owner maintain the details of the contract labour, it was not possible for the factory owner to have supervised the welfare of the contract labour. Rules and the forms required to be maintained clearly show that it was obligatory for both i.e., the contractor and the factory owner to keep detailed record of the contract labour employed in the factory. These provisions also clearly show that statute requires maintaining of registers in the prescribed forms. Such registers are necessarily to contain the names of the workmen employed by the contractor. These registers are exclusively in possession of the contractor. The principal employer has an access to these registers as he is required to certify the entries. These provisions also clearly show that statute requires maintaining of registers in the prescribed forms. Such registers are necessarily to contain the names of the workmen employed by the contractor. These registers are exclusively in possession of the contractor. The principal employer has an access to these registers as he is required to certify the entries. The workmen are not possessed of these records in the aforesaid circumstances, it cannot be assumed for a minute that the factory owner did not have details of the contract labours employed by the contractor. These registers of the contractor could have been the best evidence for establishing that these 88 workmen were the employees of the contractor. The principal employer has to maintain itself record of contract labour in Form XXV. 25. The main controversy in the present case is that on one hand Sri K.P. Agrawal, the learned Counsel for the workmen, has contended that it was obligatory on IFFCO to have proved that the workmen were employed through a licensed contractor only then they were entitled to get the benefit of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and IFFCO having failed to prove the same, the Industrial Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that the workmen were employees of IFFCO, on the other hand Sri Sudhir Chandra, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has strongly contended that the burden is always on the person who claims the relief. In the present case, the workmen were claiming reliefs of being declared as workmen of the Company, the burden of proof was on the workmen to have established that they were direct employees of IFFCO and the workmen having failed to establish the same, the Tribunal was in error in casting the burden on IFFCO for proving that the workmen were not their employees directly. 26. A bare reading of the Tribunal's award demonstrates that the Industrial Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the present 88 workmen were employees of IFFCO largely on the basis that the IFFCO has failed to prove that these workmen were employed through contractor. Before the Industrial Tribunal the contractor has not contested the case, after the filing of written statement which is termed as rejoinder-affidavit, the contractor disappeared from the case. Before the Industrial Tribunal the contractor has not contested the case, after the filing of written statement which is termed as rejoinder-affidavit, the contractor disappeared from the case. IFFCO did not make any effort to summon any record from the contractor nor itself produced any document to establish that 88 workmen were employed as contract labour through Contractor Sri Anil Kumar Misra and Shri Anil Kumar Mihra had a valid licence for employing these workmen as contract labour. The case proceeded exparte against the Contractor. 27. In this Court, Sri S.P. Kapoor, Advocate, has appeared on behalf of Contractor and has supported the case of IFFCO. 28. Before adverting to the findings o the Tribunal, it is necessary to analyse the law in this regard as to who is responsible for establishing that the workmen are employees of the principal employer or of the contractor. 29. Sri K.P. Agrawal has relied, on the following decisions of various High Courts for contending that if the principal employer tails to prove that contract labour was employed strictly in accordance with the provisions of the 1970 Act and rules and regulations framed there under, then the workmen is to be held to be employees directly of the principal employer. 30. The first decision cited by Sri K.P. Agrawal, the learned Counsel for the workmen, is the case of The Workman of Best and Crompton Industries Ltd. v. The Management of Best and Crompton Engineering Ltd. Madras, (Supra) In this decision The Workmen of Best and Crompton Industries Ltd. Vs. The Management of Best and Crompton Engineering Ltd., Madras-55, (1985) 1 LLJ 492 a Division Bench of the Madras High Court has taken the view that if there is a dispute, where the employer is claiming benefit of 1970 Act for employing workmen as contract labour through licensed contractor, the workmen are not to be held as contract labour if the main employer fails to establish that the contractor had a valid licence for engaging the number of workmen employed in the establishment. The relevant portions of the said judgment are being reproduced for reference as this judgment is sheet-anchor of the submissions of Sri K.P. Agrawal: The only other point is, what is the legal status of these workmen on the admitted facts as on 16th October, 1978. They started serving as contract labour the Management in the first instance. The relevant portions of the said judgment are being reproduced for reference as this judgment is sheet-anchor of the submissions of Sri K.P. Agrawal: The only other point is, what is the legal status of these workmen on the admitted facts as on 16th October, 1978. They started serving as contract labour the Management in the first instance. The licence granted to their contractor later expired, i.e., on 20th August, 1977. There was no renewal in the eye of law. Yet they continued to work and receive their wages through the contractor. To find the answer, it requires examination of the definition of workmen in the Industrial Disputes Act as also in the Act, besides the object of the Act and Section 2(2)(B) of the Act. Section 2(s) in the Industrial Disputes Act defines workman; almost in similar terms is the word defined in the Act.... For our present purpose, it is enough to emphasize the common factor found in both the definitions i.e., the terms of the employment may be expressed or implied. Also, the significance of Section 2(2)(b) of the Act has to be properly understood at this stage. It runs as follows: A workman shall be deemed to be employed as 'contract labour' in or in connection with the work of an establishment when he is hired in or in connection with such work by or through a contractor, with or without the knowledge of the principal employer. This definition in our view implies that if the workman is not hired through a contractor holding a valid licence under the Act, he would be a workman employed by the Management itself Further The Management must be aware that the contractor had no valid licence and that therefore, the workmen could not be contract labour within the meaning of Section 2(2)(b) of the Act. The management yet engaged the services of these 75 workmen and paid their wages through the contractor Kesavan. The intermediary because of want of licence in his favour will have no existence in the eye of law. It would thus lead to the position that there is but direct relationship between the Management and these 75 workmen. The management yet engaged the services of these 75 workmen and paid their wages through the contractor Kesavan. The intermediary because of want of licence in his favour will have no existence in the eye of law. It would thus lead to the position that there is but direct relationship between the Management and these 75 workmen. Would it not immediately lead to the result that there is an implied contract between the Management and these 75 workmen to the effect that as long as they did the work allotted to them they would be paid their respective wages. We must come to the conclusion that in the above admitted circumstances these 75 workmen were employed by the establishment. 31. The aforesaid Division Bench Decision of Madras High Court has been followed by three different High Courts. The cases are reported in the case of- (i) Food Corporation of India Loading and Unloading Workers Union v. Food Corporation of India 1986 SLR 454 (Karnataka High Court); (ii) Food Corporation of India, Haryana Region Sector-17, Chandigarh v. The Presiding Offieer Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Chandigarh 1987 (2) SLR 678 (Punjab and Haryana High Court); and (iii) Food Corporation of India Worker Union v. Food Corporation of India 1990 (61) IF LR 253 (Gujarat High Court). 32. In Food Corporation of India Loading and Unloading Worker's Union's case (supra), the Karnataka High Court, following the Madras High Court's decision took a view that for a particular period, the contractor, Respondent No. 2 had a valid licence but the Corporation did not have a valid registration certificate to engage Respondent No. 2 as its contractor for supplying the contract labour. In these circumstances, it was held that the employment of these workmen as contract labour was not valid in the eye or law and does not give any protection to the Corporation against the claims of these workmen for the wrongful termination of their services by Respondent No. 2. It was held that though the workmen were employed through contractor but for want of a valid registration certificate, the workmen were held to be employees of the Food Corporation of India. 33. It was held that though the workmen were employed through contractor but for want of a valid registration certificate, the workmen were held to be employees of the Food Corporation of India. 33. Likewise in the case of Food Corporation of India, Haryana Region, Chandigarh (supra), a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the Corporation having not established that workers were engaged by the licensed contractor and that the contractor employed by it had the requisite licence as envisaged by Section 12 of the Contract Labour Act, workers were to be treated as employees of the Corporation and Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act was attracted. Relevant portion of this decision is reproduced below: For the sake of argument, as already observed, evenjf the Corporation was possessed of a requisite certificate of registration, then too it cannot escape its liability qua the workers employed by the contractor unless it further established that the contractor employed by the principal employer possessed the requisite licence envisaged by Section 12 of Contract Labour Act. Thus the Corporation (Petitioner) failed to establish, as already observed. 34. In the Food Corporation of India Worker 'Union's case (supra), a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court, following the aforesaid decisions of Madras, Karnatak and Punjab and Haryana High Courts took the view that 1970 Act was enacted with a view to abolish where ever possible or practicable, the employment of contract labour and in case it is found that the provisions of 1970 Act have been violated, the workers were bound to be held to be the employees of the principal employer. 35. Sri K.P. Agrawal, on the basis of the aforesaid decisions, has submitted that burden of proving that the workmen were strictly employed in accordance with the provisions of 1970 Act and the rules framed there under was on IFFCO itself and IFFCO having failed to discharge the said burden, the Industrial Tribunal was perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that the workers were employees of IFFCO. Sri Agrawal has also placed in detail the findings recorded by the Industrial Tribunal and has submitted that whatever evidence was led by the parties, the Industrial Tribunal, after assessing the evidence, have come to the conclusion that there was no material on record to prove that the workmen were employed by the contract labour. Sri Agrawal has also placed in detail the findings recorded by the Industrial Tribunal and has submitted that whatever evidence was led by the parties, the Industrial Tribunal, after assessing the evidence, have come to the conclusion that there was no material on record to prove that the workmen were employed by the contract labour. On the other hand the contractor seems to have been used only as a fake person for disentitling the workers of their right to become the employees of the IFFCO. Sri Agrawal further submitted that if on the assessment of the evidence, the Industrial Tribunal has held the workers to be employees of IFFCO, in the circumstances of the present case where IFFCO failed to prove that the workers were employed as contract labour through contractor strictly in accordance with the provisions of the 1970 Act and the rules framed there under, the finding of the Industrial Tribunal does not call for interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 36. Countering the aforesaid submission of Sri K.P. Agrawal, the learned Counsel for the workmen, Sri Sudhir Chandra, the learned, Senior Advocate for the Petitioner, has submitted that burden was on the workers to prove that they were employees of IFFCO and the workers having failed to discharge the said burden, the Industrial Tribunal committed a patent error in recording a finding that the workers were employees of IFFCO. Sri Sudhir Chandra also submitted that if the contractor has failed to establish tint these workers were their employees or even if the contractor has defaulted In complying with the terms of any of his licence, on this ground alone the company cannot be fasten with the liability of 88 workers for whom there is no vacancy in the Company and the liability will come to Rs. one crore which will affect the economy of IFFCO. Sri Sudhir Chandra contended that at best the defaulting person can be punished u/s 23 of the 1970 Act but simply for violation of any of the provisions of 'aw, the workmen cannot be held to be employees of IFFCO. one crore which will affect the economy of IFFCO. Sri Sudhir Chandra contended that at best the defaulting person can be punished u/s 23 of the 1970 Act but simply for violation of any of the provisions of 'aw, the workmen cannot be held to be employees of IFFCO. Sri Sudhir Chandra has relied upon the following decisions in support of his contention that the burden of proof in the present case was on the workmen: (a) Swapan Das Gupta v. First Labour Court of West Bengal 1976 LIC 202; (b) V.K. Raj Industries v. Labour Court I 1981 (43) FLR 194; (c) Airtech Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. 1984 (49) FLR 38; (d) General Labour Union (Red Flag) Vs. K.M. Desai and others, (1990) 60 FLR 239 : (1990) 2 LLJ 259. 37. In Swapan Das Gupta's case, the Calcutta High Court took the view that where a person asserts that he was workman of the Company and it is denied by the Company, it is for him to prove the fact and it is not for the Company to prove that he was not an employee of the Company but of some other person. 38. In V.K. Raj Industries case, a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court held that in case of termination of service of workmen, the burden to prove that the order of termination was illegal was on the workman and workman having not appeared nor having produced any evidence before the Labour Court, the Labour Court was not justified in holding the order to be illegal. 39. In Airtech Pvt. Ltd., case, a learned single Judge of this Court held that the burden of proof never shifts. Only the onus of proof shifts and the labour court patently erred in holding that in view of the terms of reference made by the Government, the burden of proof lay upon the employer. 40. In the case of General Labour Union (Red Flag), Bombay, the Bombay High Court held that there is no provision in 1970 Act whereby it can be construed even by a remote possible way that the failure on the part of the contractor to register his contract u/s 12 of the Act of 1970, the employees employed by the contractor would become the direct employees of the Respondent No. 2 the Company. On the contrary, for the failure of the contractor to register the contract, some penalty is prescribed on the contractor. The relevant portion from the said decision is being reproduced for convenient reference: There is also no provision in the Act of 1970 whereby it can be construed even by a remote possible way that the failure on the part of the contractor to register his contract u/s 12 of the Act of 1970, the employees employed by the contractor would become the direct employees of the Respondent No. 2 Company. On the contrary, for the failure of the contractor to register the contract some penalty is prescribed on the contractor. This being the clear position, according to me, there is no substance in the aforesaid contention raised by the learned Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner-Union. 41. Relying upon the aforesaid decision, Sri Sudhir Chandra contended that in the present case also the purden was on the workmen to have proved that they were direct employees of the IFFCO and merely on the ground that contractor failed to prove that he had employed the workmen strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules framed there under, the workmen cannot be held to be employees of the IFFCO. 42. In the aforesaid background, the findings recorded by the Industrial Tribunal has to be examined. The Industrial Tribunal in a detailed reasoned judgment considered the case of the workmen and of IFFCO and also took note of the fact that Sri Anil Kumar Misra, the alleged contractor only filed his written statement and thereafter disappeared from the case and some papers which were filed by the-aid contractor were never proved aid the IFFCO management did not think it necessary to summon him as witness and to examine him in court and to get the documents filed by him duly proved in the court. Then the Industrial Tribunal noticed the statements made by the worker's witness and thereafter noticed the statements made by the witnesses of IFFCO. 43. Dealing on merits of the case, the Industrial Tribunal addressed itself on two questions, first as to whether 88 workers who have started the proceedings are the direct employees of IFFCO and second, as to what reliefs these workmen were entitled if they successfully proved their case. 43. Dealing on merits of the case, the Industrial Tribunal addressed itself on two questions, first as to whether 88 workers who have started the proceedings are the direct employees of IFFCO and second, as to what reliefs these workmen were entitled if they successfully proved their case. The Industrial Tribunal thereafter examined the impost of, register called duty roster which was summoned by the workmen and was proved by the workmen from IFFCO In this duty register of the year 1985. It was found that the contractor's signatures are in the original register whereas a photo copy of the said document was produced by the workmen which showed that there were no signatures of the contractor in that duty register. The Industrial Tribunal on the basis of the aforesaid duty register which was in respect of 74 workers out of 88, came to the conclusion that duties were assigned to the 88 workers by the IFFCO management and the contractor had no hand in the same. The oral evidence lei by the parties also lead to the conclusion that at no stage the workers were under the supervision and control of the contractor and there is no proof that they were ever paid wages by the contractor. Subsequent thereto the Industrial Tribunal considered the statement of Sri V.P. Awasthi, second witness examined on behaif of IFFCO who admitted that the contractor used to get the attendance of the laborers on the slips and those slips used to be handed over to IFFCO managements but these slips were also not produced by the IFFCO management. The Industrial Tribunal found that it has not been stated on behalf of IFFCO management that the slips had bees destroyed or lost. If such silps were maintained, the same could have bean produced by the IFFCO for proving that the workmen were under the employment of the contractor. IFFCO having failed to prove any such slips also leads to the conclusion that these workmen were direct employer of IFFCO management. 44. Thirdly, the Industrial Tribunal took into consideration another circumstance to show that the contractor had nothing to do with these 88 workmen who were direct employees of IFFCO. The third circumstance in the judgment of the Industrial Tribunal is the provident fund record of 24 of the 88 workmen filed as Ext. 44. Thirdly, the Industrial Tribunal took into consideration another circumstance to show that the contractor had nothing to do with these 88 workmen who were direct employees of IFFCO. The third circumstance in the judgment of the Industrial Tribunal is the provident fund record of 24 of the 88 workmen filed as Ext. E-1 which clearly shows that these workers were in service in the year 1983-83. Exts. W-3, W-4 and W-5 are the slips issued by the various officers of IFFCO which show that 9 workers were sent to do work outside the factory also. 45. The Fourth circumstance considered and relied upon by the Indus, trial Tribunal is that the contractor had only a licence for engaging 50 labourers and as such he could not have engaged 88 workers on the basis of the said licence and since it cannot be determined that who were those 50 workers out of 88 workmen for whom the licence was taken it must be presumed that all the 88 workmen were employees of IFFCO The Tribunal also found that many of the workmen were employed in the factory even prior to the engagement of Sri Anil Kumar Misra, they continued even after the termination of the contract of Sri Anil Kumar Misra. On the basis of this, the Tribunal reached to the conclusion that the workmen were not employees of the contractor. For ready reference, the said portion of the Tribunal's judgment is being reproduced herein below: Then again Anil Kumar Misra ceased to have any contract after 30-9-86 These 88 workers, however, were removed from service mostly in October. 1986. Only 4 persons were retrenched between 26-9-86 and 20-9-86 and 24-10-86. It means, therefore, that at least 84 of these workmen were continuing in service even after the close of the contract of Anil Kumar Misra If his contract was already out, why his workers allowed to continue to work in the establishment for well over one month, it is not explained. This is a circumstance to show that the contractor had nothing to do with these 88 workers who were direct employees of IFFCO The Provident Fund record of 24 of these 88 workers, Ex. This is a circumstance to show that the contractor had nothing to do with these 88 workers who were direct employees of IFFCO The Provident Fund record of 24 of these 88 workers, Ex. E-1, will clearly show (hat they were in service in the year 1983-84 Ex-W-3, W-4 and W-5 are slips issued by the various officers of IFFCO to the gate-staff and show that some of those workers were sent out to do work outside the factory also. These licence of the Contractor which is on record, authorised him only to engage 50 labourers at a lime during the period of his contract. He could not, therefore, have engaged 88 labourers. The Tribunal has also recorded a finding that 88 workmen were doing the same nature of work which permanent employees of the factory were doing. This finding also shows that the work which was being taken from these 88 workmen was not the work for which the contractor was employed. This finding clearly establishes that the present workmen were not employed for the purposes for which contractor Anil Kumar Misra was given the contract. 46. Lastly, the Industrial Tribunal found that it is established from the uncontroverted evidence on behalf of the workmen that each one of them including Ram Kuber (serial No. 25) continuously worked with the IFFCO for more than 240 days, and there is nothing on record to show that they ever absented. As such they will be deemed to be regular workers of IFFCO and will be entitled to all benefits to which direct regular employees of IFFCO were entitled. The services of these workmen were terminated without any notice and they were neither given the requisite compensation nor the pay for period of notice which is clearly in violation of the provisions of Section 6-N of the Industrial Disputes Act. As such the Tribunal concluded that 88 workers will be deemed to be continuing in service of IFFCO without break of service and will be entitled to their back wages from the date of their retrenchment upto date and to all benefits which regular employees of IFFCO are entitled. 47. As such the Tribunal concluded that 88 workers will be deemed to be continuing in service of IFFCO without break of service and will be entitled to their back wages from the date of their retrenchment upto date and to all benefits which regular employees of IFFCO are entitled. 47. The aforesaid findings are findings of fact and in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, these landings are not to be interfered with unless the findings are found to be perverse or the findings suffer from an illegality in the sense that some material evidence has not been considered Sri Sudhir Chandra, the learned Counsel for the IFFCO. has contended that these findings are perverse and also suffer from the illegality of not considering the material evidence on record. The first submission of Sri Sudhir Chandra that the findings are perverse is largely based on the assumption that the burden was on the workmen to have positively proved that they were employees of IFFCO and the workmen having failed to prove the same by any positive or direct evidence, the oral testimony of the workmen in this connection could not have been believed by the Industrial Tribunal. Sri Sudhir Chandra has also contended that merely by the circumstance that the contractor has absented himself from the proceedings or the contractor has failed to prove that he had a licence for 88 workmen or even assuming that contractor had licence only for 50 workmen, there was no proof worth the name for establishing that on any man days more than 50 workers were employed. Merely by the circumstances that the contractor on its roll had only 50 workers, provisions of Contract Licence was violated, the Industrial Tribunal drawn wrong inferences against IFFCO management on the aforesaid assumptions. 48. I have given a careful consideration of the aforesaid submissions of Sri Sudhir Chandra. I am clearly of the opinion that in the circumstances of the case, it cannot be held that the findings recorded by the Industrial Tribunal are perverse. 48. I have given a careful consideration of the aforesaid submissions of Sri Sudhir Chandra. I am clearly of the opinion that in the circumstances of the case, it cannot be held that the findings recorded by the Industrial Tribunal are perverse. The approach of the Industrial Tribunal being that in the facts of the present case the workmen having stated that they were direct employees of IFFCO and each of them has continuously worked for 240 days, the onus of proof shifted on IFFCO and it was IFFCO who should have proved by positive evidence that these workmen were on the pay rolls of the contractor or were contractor's employees. The IFFCO management have admittedly not proved any such fact. The Industrial Tribunal committed no error apparent on the face of the record in recording a finding that 88 workmen were employees of IFFCO management and their services were wrongly terminated in violation of Section 6-N of the Industrial Tribunal Act. In view of the law laid down by the Madras, Karnatak, Punjab and Haryana and Gujarat High Courts, I am clearly of the view that in cases of contract labour it is the principal employer who has to establish that contract labour is being employed strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In the present case, IFFCO has completely failed to prove any such fact and the initial burden was discharged by the workmen by examining their witnesses and establishing it by oral evidence that they were in direct employment of IFFCO and each one of them worked 240 days. It may be stated that IFFCO neither pleaded nor proved that only 50 workers worked in the factory on a man day. On the contrary the IFFCO has itself filed a deployment chart (Annexure 19') which shows deployment of 66 workmen. It is clearly established from the record that more than 50 workmen were working on a man day. Sri A.K. Datta, Employer's witness has also admitted that 88 workmen worked in the coal handling plant. The Tribunal rightly held that 88 workmen were employed whereas contractor's licence was only for 50 workmen. 49. In the present case, the responsibility of proving that only 50 workers worked on a man day was on IFFCO IFFCO has failed to prove any such fact. The Tribunal rightly held that 88 workmen were employed whereas contractor's licence was only for 50 workmen. 49. In the present case, the responsibility of proving that only 50 workers worked on a man day was on IFFCO IFFCO has failed to prove any such fact. Rule 78 makes the provision that every contractor is to maintain a muster roll and the wages register in Forms XVI and XVIII. The contractor has to maintain a register of Deductions for damages or loss, Register of fines and Register of Advances in Forms XX, XXI and XXII and Register of overtime is to be in Form XXIII. The Contractor is also required to issue wage slips in Form XIX. The signature of thumb impression of the worker concerned is to be obtained on the Register of Wages or Muster Roll-cum-Wages Register and has to be duly certified by the authorised representative of the principal employer in the manner provided in Rule 73. 50. It may be stated that in Clause (ii) of Regulation 25(2) of the 1970 Act, it is laid down that the number of workmen employed as contract labour in the establishment shall not, on any day, exceed the maximum number specified in the licence i.e., the number of workmen employed as contract labour in the establishment. Muster roll is to be maintained in Form XVI Column 5' contains the dates on which the workman has worked. This muster roll maintained by the contractor would have shown as to how many workmen were employed as contract labour on any date. Form XVII is the Register of Wages. In column no 5' of the aforesaid form, it has to be mentioned against the name of each workman for how many days he has worked A reference to this could also have shown whether on any day more than 50 workmen had worked. Form XVIII is the register of Wages-cum-Muster Roll. If the two were combined, in column No. 5' daily attendance as to be recorded. A reference to this again could establish as to on any day not more than 50 workmen worked or the number exceeded more than 50. IFFCO itself was positively required to maintain Form XXV wherein colums 6' and 7' the details of contract labour daily employed can also be calculated. A reference to this again could establish as to on any day not more than 50 workmen worked or the number exceeded more than 50. IFFCO itself was positively required to maintain Form XXV wherein colums 6' and 7' the details of contract labour daily employed can also be calculated. So on so forth, there were various documents which could have proved that IFFCO did not employ more than 50 workmen on any man day through the contractor Sri Anil Kumar Mishra. Needless to say that IFFCO has miserably failed to prove it. 51. It may also be mentioned here that from the very beginning, it was the case of the workmen that they were not involved in the work of loading and unloading coal and other raw materials and as such they were not covered by the licence of contractor Sri Anil Kumar Mishra who was given contract only for purposes of handling coal, Nephtha H.F.O.L.S.H.S. etc. from 30-9-1986 The employer's witness Sri A.K. Datta himself has admitted that these 88 workmen worked in the Power Plant, used to feed coal in the Hoppers, used to clean the Power Plant and also used to do other incidental work. The said statement itself clearly contradicts the case of the IFFCO that 88 workmen were employed for the work given to Sri A.K. Mishra the contractor. The nature of work admittedly done by 88 workmen was or permanent nature and was beyond the purview of the contract given to Sri Anil Kumar Mishra. The Tribunal has relied on all these circumstances and has recorded a finding that 88 workmen were not employed through Sri Anil Kumar Mishra and were direct employees of IFFCO. These Madines of fact are fully justified on the basis of the evidence on record and do not suffer from any such error which calls for an interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 52. The second contention of Sri Sudhir Chandra which requires consideration is that the findings of the Tribunal suffered from patent illegality, as it did not examine the import of the application moved on behalf of IFFCO management for summoning the payment of wages record wherein these 88 workmen were shown to have moved an application admitting Sri Anil Kumar Mishra, the contractor as their employer. Sri Sudhir Chandra has strongly contended that it was clear admission of the workmen admitting themselves to be workmen of the contractor, the Industrial Tribunal completely erred bye-passing the said important document in its decision. At least the document summoned from the Payment and Wages Authority should have been taken into consideration by the Industrial Tribunal. The judgment of the Industrial Tribunal suffers from patent illegality for not considering the important and vital document i.e., the application moved by the workmen before the Payment of Wages Authority. To the aforesaid submission of Sri Sudhir Chandra, Sri K.P. Agrawal, learned Counsel for the workmen, has stated that the Industrial Tribunal was justified in not addressing itself to the aforesaid document because merely summoning of a file at the last moment does not call for consideration of the document by the Industrial Tribunal. IFFCO management never proved the said document nor got a copy of it exhibited on record. Simply at the stage of argument the said file is alleged to have been summoned, the Industrial Tribunal rightly ignored the same as the copy of any such application was not exhibited on the record of the Tribunal. Sri Agrawal also submitted that it has not been proved that the present workers authorised anybody to move any such application. It is possible that for prejudicing the cause of the workers, during the pendency of the present dispute, somebody becoming the instrument of the employer might have moved the said application. Sri Agrawal has pointed out that the said application is alleged to have been moved on behalf of the workmen by one Iqbal Hussain. Section 52(2) of the Payment of Wages Act provides that such an application can be moved only by the person who has been authorised on behalf of the workmen. In the application, there is no authorisation that the workmen authorised Sri Iqbal Hussain to move the said application. One of the workmen, namely, Vishun Lal was asked the question if any collective application has been given on behalf of all the workmen, Vishun Lal, in his cross-examination, denied it" Ham logo ne samuhik roop se koi case vetan Bhugtan ka shram ayukt ke yahan nahi lagaya" (page 179). On the date Sri Vishun Lal was examined, the said document was not on the record. On the date Sri Vishun Lal was examined, the said document was not on the record. On the first date of arguments in the case, the said document was not on the record. On the second date of argument, the file was summoned from the Payment of Wages Authority. The workmen's witnesses were never confronted with the said document and had no opportunity to explain the alleged admission said to have been made before the Payment of Wages Authority. The document i.e., the alleged application under Payment of Wages Act was neither proved nor exhibited on record. 53. I have given a careful consideration of the arguments made by both the counsel on this point. The contention of Sri K.P. Agrawal that since the document was not exhibited, it did not require consideration is a technical objection and should not be normally accepted, for deciding cases under the Industrial Disputes Act, strictly Evidence Act as such has not been made applicable for adjudication of industrial disputes But looking into the circumstances of the present case, merely by summoning a file from another authority even without placing on record the copy of the said document on which a party wants to place reliance and without affording an opportunity to the other party for meeting such an evidence, if the Tribunal did not take into consideration any such document, this in itself is not such an illegality which requires interference in the decision of the Industrial Tribunal in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I am clearly of the opinion that the file from the Payment of Wag*s Authority was summoned at a late stage and the workmen had no opportunity to meet and explain the circumstances under which the said application was moved and had no opportunity to explain that the person who is alleged to have moved the said application on behalf of 88 workmen was never authorised to move the said application. The said application was admittedly moved during the pendency of the present industrial dispute and as such it was necessary that workmen must have been confronted with the said application and only then the said application could have been relied upon by the Industrial Tribunal against the workmen. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere with the decision of the Industrial Tribunal. 54. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere with the decision of the Industrial Tribunal. 54. Lastly, it has been contended by Sri Sudhir Chandra that in the facts and circumstances of the present case even if the workmen are reinstated, IFFCO should not be fasten with the liability of back wages. This submission has also been stoutly contested by Sri K.P. Agrawal who contended that there is no such exceptional circumstances requiring this Court to deviate from the normal rules that back wages should follow reinstatement. The Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as our own High Court has laid down time and again that if the order of termination of the services of the workmen is set aside, the back wages should follow. In the case of Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited v. the Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Private Ltd. AIR 1979 SC 75 (para 9'), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held: Speaking realistically, where termination of service, is questioned as invalid or illegal and the workman has to go through the gamut of j litigation, his capacity to sustain himself throughout the protracted litigation is itself such an awesome factor that he may not survive to see the day when relief is granted. More so in our system where the law's proverbial delay has become stupefying. If after such a protracted time and energy consuming litigation during which period the workmen just sustains himself, ultimately he is to be told that though he will be reinstated, he will be denied the back wages which would be due to him the workmen would be subjected to a sort of penalty for no fault of his and it is wholly undeserved. Ordinarily, therefore, a workman whose service has been illegally terminated would be entitled to full back wages except to the extent he was gainfully employed during the enforced idleness. That is the normal rule. Any other view would be a premium on the unwarranted litigative activity of the employer. 55. In the present case, the Tribunal has recorded a finding that 88 workmen were employees of IFFCO and they were working with the IFFCO even before the present contractor was given the contract and continued even after the termination of the contract of the present contractor. The findings recorded by the Tribunal clearly prove that 88 workmen were working directly with IFFCO. The findings recorded by the Tribunal clearly prove that 88 workmen were working directly with IFFCO. Other circumstances also establish that they were doing work of a permanent nature and their work was outside the scope for which the contract was given to Sri Anil Kumar Mishra. I am unable to satisfy myself that there is any exceptional circumstances justifying Sri Sudhir Chandra's contention that in the present case wages should not follow the setting aside of the order of termination of these 88 workmen. 56. The Tribunal having found that these 88 workmen were in the employment of IFFCO also recorded a finding that the termination of the services of 88 workmen was wrongful. IFFCO was not justified in terminating the services of these 88 workmen Sri Suihir Chandra has mainly argued that these 88 workmen were not employees of IFFCO and were employees of the contractor. Since the Tribunal has held that the services of 88 workmen had been terminated in violation of the provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, the workmen have neither been paid any retrenchment compensation nor their services were terminated on one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof. The Tribunal has rightly held that 88 workmen were entitled for being reinstated in service as employees of IFFCO and were also entitled for back wages. There are absolutely no reasons for interfering with the aforesaid findings of the Tribunal. 57. No other point survives. 58. During the course of arguments, two applications have been moved on behalf of the Petitioner which are being disposed of separately. 59. Since all the submissions made on behalf of IFFCO management by Sri Sudhir Chandra, the learned Senior Advocate, have failed, the writ petition also fails and is hereby dismissed with costs.