Judgment R.A.Sharma, J. 1. The Central Government in exercise of power under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act referred the following two disputes for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal): "1. Reference No. 32 of 1989 dated March 16, 1989: "Whether the action of the management of Sudamdih Colliery of BCCL in denying employment to Sri Karma Rout and 21 others with effect from July 9, 1977 is justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled?" and 2. Reference No. 35 of 1989 dated March 20, 1989 "Whether the action of the management of Sudamdih Area of BCCL in denying employment to Sh. Bhagwat Singh and 3 others, viz., Sri. Sapan, Karan Sahi and Shanti Thakur who were engaged as sump clearing mazdoors is justified? If not, to what relief are the workmen entitled?" As the controversy involved in both the cases was the same, the Tribunal heard them analogously and answered the references in favour of the workmen declaring them to be the workmen of the principal employer, namely, the Management of Bharat Coking Coal Limited (hereinafter referred to as the management) and directing for their reinstatement in service with effect from the dates of references with 75% back wages. Being aggrieved by the said Award, the management filed two writ petitions in this Court, being C.WJ.C. No. 859/1993(R) and C.W.J C. No. 86/1993(R), which have been dismissed by the learned single Judge on August 10, 1998. Not being satisfied with the judgment of the learned single Judge, the management has filed these two appeals under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. 2. The sole submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the workmen having been employed by the contractor for the contract work, the management cannot be compelled to reinstate them in its service. This has been disputed by the learned Counsel for the workmen. 3. The case of the management is that the workmen were employed by the contractor, namely, Sri Bhagwat Singh, for sump cleaning in the mines and after the contract was discontinued they have to go out of service and the management cannot be compelled to reinstate them in service. This has been disputed by the learned Counsel for the workmen. 3. The case of the management is that the workmen were employed by the contractor, namely, Sri Bhagwat Singh, for sump cleaning in the mines and after the contract was discontinued they have to go out of service and the management cannot be compelled to reinstate them in service. The case of the workmen, on the other hand, is that the sump cleaning is nothing but loading and unloading of slack dust coal in underground mine, which is prohibited category of work in view of the Government Notification dated February 1, 1975. Their further case is that the establishment in which they Were employed was neither registered nor was the so-called contractor having any licence under the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and they are in fact the workmen of the management. 4. The Tribunal recorded the following findings of fact : (i) Pumping out water and cleaning of sumps or lodgment by removal of sludge is a job of permanent nature being of continuous process in a running mine and such a work is an integral part of mining operation done in the establishment of the management; (ii) The place of work of the workman is the establishment of the management ; (iii) Neither the establishment of the management was registered nor was the alleged contractor having any licence for contract work under the Act; (iv) The workmen were working for the management in the establishment ; and (v) In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence produced by the parties, the workmen shall be deemed to be the workmen of the management. 5. The learned single Judge upheld the Award of the Tribunal holding that the sump cleaning work is a work of permanent nature connected with the mining operation of the management and neither the establishment of the management was registered nor was the so-called contractor having any licence under the Act and the workmen, therefore, shall be deemed to be the workmen of the principal employer, namely, the management. In this connection, the learned single Judge relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Air India Statutory Corporation V/s. United Labour Union and Ors., (1997-I-LLJ-1113)(SC). 6. In this connection, the learned single Judge relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Air India Statutory Corporation V/s. United Labour Union and Ors., (1997-I-LLJ-1113)(SC). 6. The mandate of Sections 7 and 8 of the Act is that the very establishment has to be registered. Section 9 of the Act provides for the effect of non- registration, according to which the principal employer of an establishment which is not registered cannot employ the contract Labour. Sections 12 and 13 of the Act prohibits a contractor from undertaking any work through contract Labour except under and in accordance with the licence issued in that behalf by the licensing officer. Sections 23 and 25 of the Act provide for penalty if a person or company contravenes any of the provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder. 7. The Apex Court in Air Indias case (supra) has held, that the aforesaid provisions of the Act are mandatory and in the event of failure on the part of the principal employer and the contractor to get registration certificate and licence, respectively, the penal consequences under the Act will be attracted. The learned Counsel for the appellant has in this connection submitted that the only consequence of engagement of workmen through an unlicensed contractor in an unregistered establishment is that the person or the company, who have contravened the provisions of the Act, will be liable to be punished under Sections 23/25 of the Act, but the workmen so employed through unlicensed contractor cannot be declared to be the workmen of the principal employer. This submission is devoid of merit. 8. When the provisions providing for registration of establishment and licensing of the contractor are mandatory, their compliance is a must failing which not only the penal consequences provided for in Sections 23 and 25 will follow but the workmen so employed through the unlicensed contractor in an unregistered establishment are also liable to be treated as the workmen of the principal employer. If the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is accepted, it will frustrate the very purpose for which the Act was enacted, inasmuch as the principal employer can engage the workmen without any obligation to enforce / follow the welfare provisions contained in Chapter V of the Act. 9. If the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is accepted, it will frustrate the very purpose for which the Act was enacted, inasmuch as the principal employer can engage the workmen without any obligation to enforce / follow the welfare provisions contained in Chapter V of the Act. 9. The controversy has now been settled by the Apex Court in Secretary, Haryana State Electricity Board V/s. Suresh and Ors., (1999-I-LLJ-1086), wherein it has been laid down that the engagement of the workman in an unregistered establishment through an unlicensed contractor is a mere camouflage to conceal the real contractual relationship between the principal employer and the workman. The relevant extract in this connection from the said decision of the Apex Court is reproduced below at p 1093 "19.......The Labour Court also noted that the Management witness Sri. A.K. Chaudhary also could not tell whether Sri. Kashmir Singh was a licensed contractor or not. That workmen had made a statement that Sri. Kashmir Singh was not a licensed contractor. Under these circumstances, it has to be held that factually there was no genuine contract system prevailing at the relevant time wherein the Board could have acted as only the principal employer and Kashmir Singh as a licensed contractor employing Labour on his own account. It is also pertinent to note that nothing was brought on record to indicate that even the Board at the relevant time, was registered as principal employer under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act. Once the Board was not a principal employer and the so-called contractor Kashmir Singh was not a licensed contractor under the Act, the inevitable conclusion that had to be reached was to the effect that the so-called contract system was a mere camouflage, smoke and a screen and disguised in almost a transparent veil which could easily be pierced and the real contractual relationship between the Board, on the one hand, and the employees, on the other, could be clearly visualised" 10. For the reasons given above, this appeal is dismissed. No costs. D.N.Prasad, J. 11 I agree.