J. M. PANCHAL, J. ( 1 ) BY instituting Special Civil Application No. 10225 of 1996 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, Steel Authority of India Limited ["sail" for short] has prayed to issue a writ of certiorari to quash award and order dated November 8, 1996 rendered by the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad, in Reference (IT) No. 190 of 1993, by which SAIL is directed to treat 160 workmen working in the stockyard located at Kaligam, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad as its permanent employees, and pay them salary, dearness allowance and other benefits as per the Rules and Regulations of the Company from the date of making of the reference i. e. from July 31, 1993. Special Civil Application No. 2643 of 1997 is filed by Gujarat Mazdoor Panchayat under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, wherein prayer made is to declare that the workmen employed in the stockyard located at Kaligam, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad are entitled to salary, dearness allowance and other benefits as per Rules and Regulations of SAIL from January 1, 1980 with 18% interest on the arrears to be paid to the workmen and not from July 31, 1993 as directed by the Industrial Tribunal. As both the petitions are directed against common award and order dated November 8, 1996, rendered by the Industrial Tribunal in Reference (IT) No. 190 of 1993, this Court proposes to dispose of them by this common judgment. ( 2 ) STEEL Authority of India Limited is a Government of India Enterprise. It is a Government Company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in production and marketing of iron and steel items, such as, angles, bars, coils, wires, rods, looms, billets, iron girders etc. The company has its steel manufacturing plants at Bokaro, Rourkela, Bhilai, Alloy Steel Plant at Durgapur, stainless steel plant at Salem and subsidiaries at Burnpur, Bhadravati and Chandrapura. ( 3 ) THE Central Marketing Organization, which is the marketing unit of SAIL, markets the products manufactured at various steel plants. In order to cater to the demands of its customers, the Central Marketing Organization has established network of stockyards where it receives materials produced by the plants and after receiving the same, stores it and sells the same to its customers. One such stockyard is located at Kaligam, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad. In order to cater to the demands of its customers, the Central Marketing Organization has established network of stockyards where it receives materials produced by the plants and after receiving the same, stores it and sells the same to its customers. One such stockyard is located at Kaligam, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad. ( 4 ) THE workmen employed in the stockyard are doing work of unloading the materials arriving by rail/road, sorting them out, stacking in the yard and loading the same in the trucks brought by the customers when sale is effected. All the handling operations as also stacking are done as per the stipulations of stacking plans, handling and storage guidelines laid down by SAIL and other instructions issued by stockyard incharge. In the stockyard, 160 labourers are employed and they work in three shifts, duration of each shift being of 8 hours. Cranes, tools and tackles, equipments etc. required to efficiently handle the expected cargo in the yard are also supplied by the Company and they are being operated by labourers. The workers employed in the stockyard are members of Gujarat Mazdoor Panchayat, which is the sole bargaining agent on behalf of the workmen employed at SAILs stockyard located at Kaligam, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad. ( 5 ) THE case of SAIL is that having regard to the liberalised imports as well as competition from private sectors and unsteady supply of materials from manufacturing plants, it is not in a position to maintain regular, systematic or permanent labour force for its handling operations carried out at stockyards, and enters into a contract with a handling contractor capable of handling iron and steel materials at the stockyard, who engages his own labourers and handles steel materials on the terms and conditions stipulated in the contract. What is maintained by SAIL is that the contract, inter alia, stipulates that the handling contractor has to comply with the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulations and Abolition) Act, 1970 ("the Act" for short), Minimum Wages Act etc. and there is no privity of contract, direct or indirect, between SAIL and labourers engaged by the contractor. What is maintained by SAIL is that the contract, inter alia, stipulates that the handling contractor has to comply with the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulations and Abolition) Act, 1970 ("the Act" for short), Minimum Wages Act etc. and there is no privity of contract, direct or indirect, between SAIL and labourers engaged by the contractor. On the other hand, the claim of Gujarat Mazdoor Panchayat is that workmen are working in the stockyard of SAIL since years and as (i) they are doing work of SAIL which is permanent in nature, and (ii) without those workers, whole activity in the stockyard is bound to come to a standstill, the workers are, in reality, employees of SAIL and are entitled to receive basic wages, dearness allowance etc. as per the scales applicable to other employees of SAIL. What is asserted by the Panchayat is that though the concerned workmen are shown on the rolls of dubious intermediaries i. e. contractors, the so-called contractors are not independent nor concerned workmen perform the work of contractors and the contractor being a name lender and a facade brought in by the Company, the workers are entitled to be treated as employees of SAIL. ( 6 ) THEREFORE, Gujarat Mazdoor Panchayat served a demand notice dated March 21, 1992 asking SAIL to treat workers employed in stockyard located at Kaligam, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad as its employees and make payment of wages etc. on that basis. However, there was no response from SAIL. The Panchayat, therefore, raised an industrial dispute and approached the competent authority under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("the I. D. Act" for short) demanding that the workers employed in the stockyard located at Kaligam be treated as employees of SAIL. Thereupon, conciliation proceedings were initiated and reply dated June 26, 1993 was submitted by SAIL refuting the claim advanced by the Panchayat. During the pendency of conciliation proceedings, tender notice dated July 20, 1993 was issued by SAIL for appointment of handling contractor. The tender submitted by Bardhan and Company (Handling) Contractors Private Limited. ("bardhan and Co. " for short) was accepted on September 27, 1993 and work contract was issued on October 16, 1993. However, formal contract was executed by Bardhan and Co. on October 23, 1993, though strangely stamp paper for the same was purchased on January 3, 1994. The handling contract with Bardhan and Co. ("bardhan and Co. " for short) was accepted on September 27, 1993 and work contract was issued on October 16, 1993. However, formal contract was executed by Bardhan and Co. on October 23, 1993, though strangely stamp paper for the same was purchased on January 3, 1994. The handling contract with Bardhan and Co. was for a period of 4 1/2 years. Bardhan and Co. had obtained licence under the Act on December 17, 1993, which was valid for one year regarding which intimation was communicated to the registering authority under the Act by SAIL on October 22, 1993. ( 7 ) ON failure of conciliation proceedings, following dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad, by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Ahmedabad vide order dated July 31, 1993 under Section 10 of the I. D. Act, for adjudication. "whether the workmen shown below should be treated as permanent workmen from the day they are working in Steel Authority of India Ltd. , Kaligam yard and whether they should be paid wages, dearness allowance and other allowances as per the rules of the company from that date?" ( 8 ) ON behalf of the concerned workmen, statement of claim at Exh. 6 was filed by the President of Gujarat Mazdoor Panchayat. In the statement, it was mentioned that the concerned workmen were/are working in Kaligam yard since years and were/are doing work of unloading, separating and stacking materials at different places as well as work of loading the same in trucks of customers of SAIL. It was claimed in the said statement that the abovereferred to works are permanent in nature and without these activities, business of Company would come to a standstill. It was further mentioned therein that all these works/activities would continue so long as the stockyard is in existence, and that concerned workmen were/are doing the job manually and also with cranes, tools etc. supplied by SAIL. The case pleaded in the statement of claim was that the iron material was/is coming for sale to the yard from different manufacturing plants of SAIL through trains and trucks, and that all types of materials were/are separated and stacked at different places in the stockyard as per stacking plan as well as handling and storage guidelines laid down by SAIL. Further, it was stated in the statement of claim that the workmen were/are also doing the work of loading materials in the trucks and trailers brought by the customers from the stockyard and that the work of stockyard is going on in three shifts i. e. round the clock. As per the claim advanced in the statement of claims, names of concerned workmen were not mentioned in the Registers of SAIL, but were mentioned in the Registers of dubious intermediaries i. e. contractors engaged by SAIL. What was asserted was that, in fact, the work which the concerned workmen were/are performing, was/is not of the contractor nor for the benefit of the contractor, but the contractor being a dubious intermediary, a make-believe trapping, a name lender and facade brought in by SAIL with the sole motive of exploiting the concerned workmen, the workmen were entitled to be treated as employees of SAIL. After referring to the tests laid down by the Supreme Court to ascertain whether the contractor employed by principal employer was sham and bogus, it was pleaded in the statement of claim that having regard to continued employment of workmen concerned in the stockyard under the control and supervision of SAIL and other factors, the workmen should be regarded as employees of SAIL. By filing statement of claim, Gujarat Mazdoor Panchayat prayed the Industrial Tribunal to render an award declaring that the concerned workmen working in the stockyard of SAIL located at Kaligam were/are permanent workmen of SAIL from the date they were working in the stockyard and entitled to basic pay, dearness allowance and other allowances as per the Rules and Regulations of the said Company. ( 9 ) ON service of summons, SAIL filed reply at Exh. ( 9 ) ON service of summons, SAIL filed reply at Exh. 9 and contended, inter alia, that having regard to the liberalized imports as well as competition from private sectors and unsteady supply of materials from manufacturing plants, it was/is not in a position to maintain regular, systematic or permanent labour force for its handling operations carried out at the stockyard, and had entered and enters into a contract with handling contractor capable of handling iron and steel materials at the stockyard, who engages his own labourers and handles steel materials on the terms and conditions mentioned in the contract and, therefore, the workmen employed in the stockyard are not entitled to the declaration sought for in the statement of claim. It was averred in the written statement that SAIL pays amount to handling contractor per tonne and as there is no privity of contract between the workers engaged by handling contractor and SAIL, the reference should be dismissed. According to SAIL, the wages of concerned workmen were/are paid by the handling contractor/s as per terms and conditions determined between the handling contractor and the workmen with which SAIL has no concern whatsoever and, therefore, reliefs claimed should be denied to the workmen. What was pleaded in the written statement was that officers of SAIL are signing Salary Register of the concerned workmen only as a witness and as the work which is being performed by workmen is not of a permanent nature, reliefs claimed should be denied to the workmen. It was also pointed out in the written statement that the handling contractor regularly sends returns to the Labour Officer, deducts provident fund from the wages payable to the workmen as well as deposits the same in the accounts of the workmen and, therefore, the demands made in the statement of claim should not be granted. ( 10 ) SAIL produced five documents vide list Exh. 25 in support of its case pleaded in the written statement. They were (i) original contract dated October 23, 1993 entered into with Bardhan and Co. , (ii) statement of terms of the contract dated August 20, 1993, (iii) guidelines to be complied with by the handling contractor, (iv) a xerox copy of the registration certificate issued to the handling contractor, and (v) a xerox copy of labour licence granted under the provisions of the Act. , (ii) statement of terms of the contract dated August 20, 1993, (iii) guidelines to be complied with by the handling contractor, (iv) a xerox copy of the registration certificate issued to the handling contractor, and (v) a xerox copy of labour licence granted under the provisions of the Act. In support of the reference, Gujarat Mazdoor Panchayat examined Dhanu Prasad Ram Ajor at Exh. 10; whereas in support of averments made in the written statement, SAIL examined Rajeshsing Shyamkishoresing, who was manager of Bardhan and Co. at Exh. 20 and M. Narayan Pillai, an officer of SAIL, at Exh. 22. ( 11 ) ON the basis of (i) statement of claim, (ii) written statement filed by SAIL, (iii) documentary evidence produced by SAIL, (iv) oral evidence adduced by the parties, and (v) arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, four issues for determination were framed by the Tribunal. They were, (i) whether tools with which concerned workmen work and the place of yard belong to the Company? (ii) whether contractor Bardhan and Co. has recruited the concerned workmen? (iii) whether Steel Authority of India Ltd. proves that the contract of Bardhan and Co. is legal? and (iv) whether the concerned workmen are entitled to get salary, dearness allowance and other benefits which are being given to other permanent workmen of the Company? ( 12 ) ON critical analysis of the evidence adduced by the parties, the Industrial Tribunal held that it was proved that Kaligam Yard is of the ownership of SAIL. After referring to the xerox copy of the Registration Certificate produced at Exh. 30, the Tribunal noticed that during the period from May 19, 1973 to May 18, 1975, Ratansing and Madanlal Sharma were awarded handling contracts, but no particulars were produced by SAIL to indicate as to whether, thereafter, any contract for handling materials received at the stockyard was entered into with any handling contractor, or whether the Company itself was taking the work of loading and unloading materials from the concerned workmen. The Industrial Tribunal deduced that the concerned workmen were not recruited/employed by Bardhan and Co. and were rendering services in the stockyard since years. The Industrial Tribunal further deduced that concerned workmen were/are serving under the supervision, control and direction of SAIL since years. The Industrial Tribunal deduced that the concerned workmen were not recruited/employed by Bardhan and Co. and were rendering services in the stockyard since years. The Industrial Tribunal further deduced that concerned workmen were/are serving under the supervision, control and direction of SAIL since years. The Tribunal noticed that the reference of the dispute was made to the Tribunal on July 31, 1993, after which handling contract was entered into by SAIL with Bardhan and Co. on October 23, 1993, for which stamp paper was purchased on January 3, 1994, but, there were no signatures or seals of any officers of SAIL on the agreement and, therefore, the handling contract was fabricated to deprive the workmen concerned of their lawful rights. The Tribunal further found that the term of the handling contract with Ratansing and Madanlal Sharma was over in the year 1975, but no evidence was adduced by SAIL to establish that it had entered into contract with any other handling contractor for carrying out handling operations after 1975, which indicated that SAIL itself was taking work of loading and unloading from the concerned workmen since years and that concerned workmen were entitled to declaration that they were permanent workmen of SAIL. In view of the abovereferred to conclusions, the Tribunal by award and order dated November 8, 1996 has held that the concerned workmen working in the stockyard located at Kaligam, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad, are permanent workmen/employees of SAIL, and has directed SAIL to pay salary, dearness allowance and other benefits to them as per the rules and regulations of the Company from July 31, 1993, giving rise to the abovenumbered two petitions. ( 13 ) MR. K. S. NANAVATI, learned Senior Advocate of the petitioner company, argued that if the contract is sham and bogus and/or not genuine, the workmen of the so-called contractor can raise an industrial dispute for declaring that they were always employees of the principal employer, and for claiming appropriate service conditions, but if the industrial adjudicator comes to a conclusion that the contract is not sham and is genuine, the reference will have to be rejected. After emphasising that while recording findings of facts, the Tribunal has not considered material evidence, and reached conclusions on the manifest misreading of evidence, it was argued that a writ of certiorari should be issued as conclusions reached are perverse. After emphasising that while recording findings of facts, the Tribunal has not considered material evidence, and reached conclusions on the manifest misreading of evidence, it was argued that a writ of certiorari should be issued as conclusions reached are perverse. The learned counsel contended that not only the evidence on record namely, different clauses of contract between the petitioner and Bardhan and Co. are not considered, but wrong test is applied while deciding the reference and as findings recorded on jurisdictional facts have been reached unreasonably and arbitrarily, the matter should be remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration after setting aside the impugned award. What was argued was that evidence of witness of Bardhan and Co. and that of SAIL would indicate that all the workmen were serving under supervision, control and direction of Bardhan and Co. since years and, therefore, the reference should have been dismissed. The learned Senior Advocate of the petitioner contended that Dhanu Prasad Ram Ajor, who is examined by the respondent No. 1, has admitted in his evidence that at the time when he joined the service, Mangadhram was the contractor and after Mangadhram, Nebrus was the contractor, after which, Intercity and New Maha Gujarat were the contractors and thereafter, Nitex came as contractor and then Western Caterers, Durga Crane Company, Shri Chand Rolling Mills, Bhatia Company, R. C. Gupata and Bardhan and Co. were the contractors, which indicates that right from the beginning, genuine contract system was in existence and, therefore, the reference should have been dismissed. According to the learned Senior Advocate of the petitioner, declaration made by the Tribunal to the effect that concerned workmen working in the stockyard located at Kaligam, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad, are permanent workers of SAIL, is based on the finding that labour contract between the petitioner and Bardhan and Co. was fabricated and as the said finding is perverse, the award of the Tribunal should be set aside. The learned Senior Advocate urged that evidence on record indicates that after issuing tender notice for appointment of handling contractor, Bardhan and Company (Handling) Contractors Private Limited was appointed as handling contractor and as the said contract was neither sham nor bogus, the declaration made by the Tribunal that the workmen working in the stockyard of SAIL located at Kaligam, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad, are permanent workmen of SAIL deserves to be set aside. It was emphasised that it is an undisputed position that tender submitted by Bardhan and Co. was accepted by SAIL in the year 1993 and in cross examination of the witness examined by the petitioner, it was nobodys case that the contract with Bardhan and Co. was fabricated or that Bardhan and Co. had started work as contractor in the year 1994 and, therefore, the declaration, which is essentially based on the finding that the contract with Bardhan and Co. was fabricated, should be set aside. The learned Senior Advocate of the petitioner referred to the averments made in the written statement filed by the petitioner to the Statement of Claim, for emphasising the fact that permanent workmen of SAIL are doing office work, clerical work and supervisory work whereas the concerned workmen employed in the stockyard are doing work of loading and unloading materials, which is not being performed by the regular employees of SAIL and, therefore, the workmen employed in the stockyard are not entitled to declaration that they are permanent employees of SAIL. What was asserted was that the evidence on record establishes the facts, namely, that; (a) wages are being paid to the workmen employed in the stockyard by the contractor, (b) Pay Register is being maintained by the contractor, (c) the contractor has to prepare bill in terms of the workmen engaged by him, (d) the contractor regularly sends returns to the Labour Officer as required by law, (e) Presence Register is maintained by the contractor, (f) the contractor regularly deducts provident fund from salary of the workmen and deposits the same in the accounts of workmen, which in turn indicate that the workmen working in the stockyard of SAIL are workmen of the contractor appointed by SAIL, but not of SAIL and, therefore, the petition should be accepted. The learned Senior Advocate of the petitioner pleaded that the fact that the workmen concerned were working in the stockyard since years is of little importance inasmuch as workmen were continued in service in view of directions issued by the High Court in Special Civil Application Nos. The learned Senior Advocate of the petitioner pleaded that the fact that the workmen concerned were working in the stockyard since years is of little importance inasmuch as workmen were continued in service in view of directions issued by the High Court in Special Civil Application Nos. 8007 of 1990 and 8167 of 1990 wherein prayers for abolition of labour contract system and referring the matter to the Advisory Body constituted under the Act for opinion are made and, therefore, the said factor which is relied upon by the Tribunal while making the declaration in favour of the concerned workmen, should not be given undue importance by this Court. After referring to the provisions of Section 2 of the Act, it was contended by the learned Senior Advocate of the petitioner that it is presupposed that the employees will be working in the place belonging to principal employer and, therefore, the fact that the concerned workmen were working in the place belonging to SAIL should not have been overemphasized by the Tribunal while answering the reference. What was maintained was that the tests laid down in Section 10 (2) of the Act which are relevant for abolition of contract system cannot be taken into consideration while determining whether the contract is sham or bogus and as the Tribunal has taken into consideration those tests for coming to the conclusion that the labour contract entered into between SAIL and Bardhan and Co. was not genuine, the award impugned in the petition should be set aside. According to the learned Senior Advocate of the petitioner, the fact that tools were made available to the workmen for discharging their duties is of little consequence inasmuch as the same were made available for a price to the contractor and, therefore, the award which is based on irrelevant considerations should be set aside. Commenting upon the finding recorded by the Tribunal to the effect that there was control and supervision of SAIL over the work performed by the concerned workmen in the stockyard, it was emphasised that the nature of the work performed is such which needs supervision and giving of instructions by SAIL and, therefore, it should not have been taken into consideration while answering the reference. The learned Senior Advocate emphasised that burden of proof is on the workmen to establish that they are not employees of independent contractor engaged by SAIL, but they are, in fact, employees of SAIL and as the concerned workmen have failed to discharge burden of proof, the petition should be allowed by setting aside the impugned award. After exhaustively reading over the award impugned in the petition, it was stressed that what has weighed with the Tribunal in granting the declaration in favour of the concerned workmen is that the contractor and SAIL have violated the provisions of the Act and the Rules, which cannot be taken into consideration as one of the relevant factors for deciding the issue, whether the contract is sham or genuine and, therefore, the petition should be accepted. It was argued that the dispute, namely, whether the employees employed by the labour contractor should be treated as employees of SAIL was, in fact, not referred to the Tribunal for adjudication and as the relevant evidence could not be produced by SAIL to establish that, in fact, concerned workmen employed in the stockyard were employees of the contractor and that the labour contract entered into between SAIL and the labour contractor was genuine, the matter should be remanded to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication after giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence in support of their respective cases. The learned Senior Advocate of the petitioner referred to; (a) two petitions namely, Special Civil Application Nos. 8007 of 1990 and 8167 of 1990 wherein the respondent No. 1 has prayed for abolition of contract system and to refer the matter to the Advisory Body constituted under the Act for its opinion, (b) settlement under Section 2 (P) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, arrived at between Bardhan and Co. and the respondent No. 1 in the matter of wages and other Service Conditions of the workmen employed in the stockyard, (c) communication dated December 2, 1995 addressed by Bardhan and Co. and the respondent No. 1 in the matter of wages and other Service Conditions of the workmen employed in the stockyard, (c) communication dated December 2, 1995 addressed by Bardhan and Co. to SAIL indicating that licence under the Act was renewed up to October 22, 1996, (d) communication dated October 22, 1993 addressed by SAIL to the Registering Officer under the Act stating that Bardhan and Company (Handling) Contractors Private Limited, were appointed as new handling contractor with effect from October 22/23, 1993, and requesting the Registering Officer to amend the Registration Certificate duly incorporating particulars of the new contractor mentioned therein, (e) intimation dated October 16, 1993 given by Bardhan and Co. to the Branch Manager of SAIL conveying that the charge of the stockyard located at Kaligam, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad, would be taken over on October 23, 1993, (f) terms and conditions of the contract for handling iron and steel materials at the stockyard entered into between SAIL and the contractor, (g) Inter Office Memo issued by SAIL indicating payment made to handling contractor, M/s. Bhatia Crane, and (h) memorandum of settlement under Section 2 (P) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 arrived at between Shree Durga Crane Company and the General Secretary of the respondent No. 2 produced on record of Special Civil Application No. 10225 of 1996, and pleaded that as the labour contract system adopted by SAIL is genuine, the declaration made by the Tribunal to the effect that the concerned workmen working in the stockyard located at Kaligam, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad, are permanent workmen of SAIL should be quashed or in the alternative, the matter should be remanded for fresh consideration by the Tribunal. In support of abovereferred to submissions, the learned Senior Advocate placed reliance on the decisions in (a) Syed Yakoob v. K. S. Radhakrishnan, and Ors. A. I. R. 1964 SC 477 = (1964) 5 SCR 64 , (b) Vegoils Pvt. Ltd. v. The Workmen, A. I. R. 1972 SC 1942, (c) M/s. Raza Textiles Ltd. , Rampur v. The Income-tax Officer, Rampur, A. I. R. 1973 SC 1362, (d) R. K. Panda and Ors. v. Steel Authority of India and Ors. , (1994) 5 SCC 304 , (e) Gujarat Electricity Board, Thermal Power Station, Ukai v. Hind Mazdoor Sabha and Ors. , A. I. R. 1995 SC 1893, (f) Achutananda Baidya v. Prafullya Kumar Gayen and Ors. v. Steel Authority of India and Ors. , (1994) 5 SCC 304 , (e) Gujarat Electricity Board, Thermal Power Station, Ukai v. Hind Mazdoor Sabha and Ors. , A. I. R. 1995 SC 1893, (f) Achutananda Baidya v. Prafullya Kumar Gayen and Ors. , (1997) 5 SCC 76 , (g) Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. and Anr. v. Shramik Sena and Ors. , A. I. R. 1999 SC 2577, (h) Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Ors. v. National Union Water Front Workers and Ors. , A. I. R. 2001 SC 3527 (paragraphs 100 and 105), (i) Pramukh Sampadak, Marathi Vishwakosh, Wai and Ors. v. Dhairyasheel S. Phalke and Ors. , 2001 Lab. I. C. 2587, (j) Hari Shankar Sharma and Ors. v. Artificial Limbs Manufacturing Corporation and Ors. , (2002) 1 SCC 337 , (k) Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. K. V. Shramik Sangh and Ors. , (2002) 4 SCC 609 and (l) Trambak Rubber Industries Ltd. v. Nashik Workers Union and Ors. , (2003) 6 SCC 416 . ( 14 ) MR. R. VENKATARAMANI, learned Senior Advocate of the respondent No. 1, contended that the award impugned does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference by the Court in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and, therefore, the same should be upheld. According to the learned Senior Advocate of the respondent No. 1, the Industrial Tribunal has acted within the confines of the reference as well as considered all the evidence adduced by the parties, and as the Tribunal has neither shut out the parties from leading evidence nor has omitted to consider the evidence led before it, the petition should be dismissed more particularly when scope of issuance of writ of certiorari, as explained by the Supreme Court in Syed Yakoob v. K. S. Radhakrishnan, and Ors. A. I. R. 1964 SC 477 = (1964) 5 SCR 64 , is limited. After emphasising that it is well settled that High Court under Article 226 will not interfere in weighing of the evidence led before the Tribunal as if High Court is sitting in appeal, it was argued that a finding of fact cannot also be challenged on the ground that relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal was insufficient and inadequate to sustain the finding and, therefore also, the petition should be dismissed. According to the learned Senior Advocate of the respondent No. 1, the Tribunal considered the four issues merely with a view to recording finding and answering the reference and, therefore, the plea that issues dealt with by the Tribunal are irrelevant or misconceived should not be entertained by this Court while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned Senior Advocate of the respondent No. 1 explained that the four issues or questions which have been framed by the Tribunal can be comprised into a single proposition as to whether the concerned workmen were employed by the contractor or by the petitioner, and this question having been answered in favour of the concerned workmen on appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the parties before the Tribunal, the petition should not be accepted. The learned Senior Advocate of the respondent No. 1 emphasised that the finding of the Tribunal on the genuineness of contract entered into between the labour contractor and SAIL is unassailable and, therefore, the petition should be dismissed. After explaining that it is true that, initial, burden of proof to prove the fact that the concerned workmen are workmen of SAIL and not of contractor rested upon the workmen, it was pointed out that by their claim statement and oral evidence, the concerned workmen have established that they were never recruited by any of the contractors or they were ever under control and supervision of the so-called contractor including Bardhan and Co. and, therefore, the finding reached by the Tribunal that the concerned workmen were, in fact, employees of SAIL deserves to be upheld. It was argued that the best evidence in the form of execution of genuine contract from the beginning as well as employment record was not produced by the writ petitioner before the Tribunal and, therefore, the writ petitioner is not entitled to claim that the award impugned in the petition is liable to be set aside as the concerned workmen had failed to discharge burden of proof lying on them. What was maintained was that it is well settled that once the parties have led evidence understanding the nature of the case to be met, and the Court has recorded findings on the basis of evidence led, the question of burden of proof becomes academic in nature, and should not be made a ground by this Court for setting aside the impugned award. It was asserted by the learned Senior Advocate of the respondent No. 1 that there is no merits in the submission that in view of materials now sought to be pressed into service before this Court, the matter should be remanded to the Tribunal because nothing prevented the writ petitioner from producing these materials before the Tribunal and power to remand available under the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 should be exercised sparingly and not for the purpose of fresh adjudication or to enable the writ petitioner to fill up gap in evidence. The learned Senior Advocate of the respondent No. 1 took strong objection to the reliance placed by the learned Senior Advocate of the petitioner on the documents produced for the first time along with petition, and contended that the additional materials should not be taken on record or looked into by this Court as looking into the said materials is opposed to principles of fairness. It was pointed out that it would be improper for this Court to criticise the award of the Tribunal with reference to the materials / documents produced for the first time along with the petition as the Tribunal had no occasion or opportunity to deal with those documents, and the Court while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution should not permit the petitioner to rely upon additional material in support of the plea that the concerned workmen were workmen of the labour contractor. In the alternative, it was argued that even if additional materials are considered by the Court, none of these materials advances the case of the writ petitioner to the effect that the concerned workmen were the workmen of the contractor inasmuch as due execution of document dated October 23, 1993 would not depend upon any other material anterior in point of time put in by the parties who have no concern with the execution of the document dated October 23, 1993 and, therefore, the petition should be dismissed. It was argued that it would be absurd to test the validity and genuineness of the document dated October 23, 1993 allegedly executed between Bardhan and Co. and SAIL, on the basis of settlement between the respondent No. 1 and Bardhan and Co. and, therefore, the plea based on 2 (P) Settlement should not be accepted by the Court. The learned Senior Advocate of the respondent No. 1 contended that a mere physical presence of the alleged contract prior to October 23, 1993 cannot lead to the conclusion that the contract between SAIL and Bardhan and Co. was genuine or bona fide more so when Bardhan and Co. had not employed the concerned workmen at all and, therefore, the petition based on additional evidence should be dismissed. The learned Senior Advocate stressed that the writ petitioner has not demonstrated either before the Tribunal or before this Court that owing to the genuine requirement of labour contract, the workmen in question were always engaged as contract labourers through the contractors to whom contracts were given from time to time and, therefore, mere drawing of a formal instrument being of no consequence, the award impugned in the petition should be upheld. In support of his submissions, the learned Senior Advocate has placed reliance on the decisions in (a) Management of Bihar Khadi Gramodyog Sangh, Muzffarpur v. State of Bihar and Ors. , 1977 Lab. I. C. 466, (b) The Cooperative Tea Society Limited v. Plantation Workers Union, 1977 (II) LL. J. 16, (c) Husainbhai, Calicut v. Alath Factory Thezhalali Union, Kozhikode, 1978 (37) F. L. R. 136 = A. I. R. 1978 SC 1410 = 1978 Lab. I. C. 1264, (d) A. I. R. 1978 SC 581, (e) Shaw Wallace and Company Ltd. v. First Industrial Tribunal, W. B. and Ors. , 1986 Lab. J. 16, (c) Husainbhai, Calicut v. Alath Factory Thezhalali Union, Kozhikode, 1978 (37) F. L. R. 136 = A. I. R. 1978 SC 1410 = 1978 Lab. I. C. 1264, (d) A. I. R. 1978 SC 581, (e) Shaw Wallace and Company Ltd. v. First Industrial Tribunal, W. B. and Ors. , 1986 Lab. I. C. 2030, (f) Gujarat Electricity Board, Thermal Power Station, Ukai, Gujarat v. Hind Mazdoor Sabha and Ors. , (1995) 5 SCC 27 , (g) Standard Vaccum Refining Company of India Limited v. Their Workmen and Anr. , A. I. R. 1996 SC 1948, (h) Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Ors. v. National Water Front Workers and Ors. , A. I. R. 2001 SC 3527. ( 15 ) MR. GIRISH Patel, learned Senior Advocate of the respondent No. 2, pleaded that neither any jurisdictional error is committed by the Tribunal nor any patent error of law on the face of record is committed by the Tribunal in granting declaration in favour of the concerned workmen nor the findings which are based on appreciation of evidence are perverse nor the findings recorded are irrational or unreasonable and, therefore, the scope of interference with the award of the Tribunal in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution being limited, the petition should be dismissed. After emphasising few basic principles of approach, which the High Court should adopt while examining validity of the award of the Industrial Tribunal, such as (a) the entire purpose of the industrial adjudication of industrial dispute is industrial peace and harmony, (b) the tribunal has wider powers than the ordinary Civil Court, (c) Courts approach should be to uphold the Tribunals awards as far as possible and not to upset it by searching some loopholes here and there or on some ordinary lapses or technical errors, (d) industrial disputes are between two unequal parties out of which Management has its resources, information, expertise etc. whereas workers who are merely wage earners have no resources, no access to informations etc. whereas workers who are merely wage earners have no resources, no access to informations etc. , (e) industrial law is always concerned with the substance of the matter and not with the form and the tribunal is, therefore, concerned with the real relations between the parties and not mere paper arrangements, (f) the tribunal has to consider all materials on record brought before it by the parties having regard to the principles of broad probabilities, (g) Courts should have holistic approach to the tribunals award not merely piecemeal and should look to the award as a whole in its totality to find out the true picture, (h) the Parliament has conferred exclusive jurisdiction upon Industrial Tribunal to decide all the questions of industrial disputes including its own jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other Courts, and (i) limited scope of interference in a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, it was argued that the petition which lacks merits should be dismissed. The learned Senior Advocate of the respondent No. 2 pointed out that though it is well settled that the award of the Tribunal can be challenged under Articles 226 and/or 227 or both, choice is with the petitioner, but the question, whether the petitioner has chosen to approach High Court under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution should be decided with reference to the pleadings as well as by finding out, whether the Tribunal, which should have been impleaded as party in a petition under Article 226, is impleaded as party or not, and as the petitioner has failed to implead the Tribunal as party, instant petition should be treated as having been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, which should be dismissed having regard to the limited scope of interference available to High Court. According to the learned Senior Advocate of the respondent No. 2, the only materials before the Tribunal were, (i) charter of demand dated March 21, 1992, (ii) Companys reply dated June 26, 1993, (iii) Reference dated July 31, 1993, (iv) Statement of claim filed by the respondent No. 1, (v) reply of the company, (vi) evidence of three witnesses and (vii) five documents produced by SAIL, and after considering all these materials and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, the Tribunal has recorded the findings namely, (a) 160 workers are concerned in the dispute, (b) these workers have been working since many years and few of them even more than 20 years, (c) the company is working in three shifts round the clock for 24 hours, (d) workers have remained the same, but the contractors have been changed from time to time, (e) work is of permanent and perennial nature and not merely contingent, occasional or temporary, (f) work of loading and unloading is integral and essential part of the business of the company and without this work, the company cannot sell its products, (g) company has continued to engage a substantial number of workers and not merely two or three or four workers, (h) though there is a reference in the evidence to the contractors coming and going, the company has not given any details about them either in oral evidence or by way of documents, (i) all the important aspects, namely, the yard place, the tools, the materials to be handled, the supervision and guidance, the detailed instructions etc. belong to the company, (j) there is supervision and control of SAIL over the concerned workmen, (k) the workmen concerned are not engaged by the contractors, (l) neither the company nor the contractor has brought any evidence whatsoever to show the position of the workmen immediately before the so-called Bardhan and Co. , contractor, etc. , and these findings based on appreciation of evidence should not be set aside by the Court. , contractor, etc. , and these findings based on appreciation of evidence should not be set aside by the Court. After submitting that the tests or criteria, for deciding whether the concerned workmen are the workmen employed by the contractor or SAIL, are; (a) the traditional control test, (b) all factors to be cumulatively considered, and (c) the organisation test, i. e. to which organisation the workers belong, it was argued that correct tests having been applied by the Tribunal, the award rendered by it should be upheld by the Court. The learned Senior Advocate emphasised that instant petition having been filed essentially under Article 227 of the Constitution, no new evidence should be permitted to be led more particularly when the award or judgment of adjudicatory authority is before the Court. It was pleaded that the writ petitioner has tried to bring totally new evidence on record of the petition, but the new evidence never formed part of the record of the Tribunal at any stage and, therefore, the new documents sought to be relied upon should not be taken into consideration by the Court. In the alternative, it was argued that even if additional materials sought to be relied upon by the petitioner are considered, the same do not advance the case pleaded by the petitioner inasmuch as demand for abolition of the contract labour system made in two writ petitions does not debar the concerned workmen from raising the dispute before the Tribunal that the concerned workmen are the direct employees of the SAIL and the contract system, if any, is merely a facade nor 2 (P) settlement debars the union from contending that the workers are the real employees of SAIL and not of the contractor. It was explained that once the so-called contractor was sought to be brought on paper, the workers were induced by way of safety and precautions to secure their terms and conditions of service with the contractors, but that does not exclude their right to contend that they are really the workers of SAIL and, therefore, 2 (P) settlement is of little consequence. The learned Senior Advocate of the respondent No. 2 contended that no ground is made out by the writ petitioner to interfere with the well-reasoned declaration made by the Tribunal that the concerned workmen are the workmen of SAIL and, therefore, the petition should be dismissed with costs. The learned Senior Advocate of the respondent No. 2 contended that no ground is made out by the writ petitioner to interfere with the well-reasoned declaration made by the Tribunal that the concerned workmen are the workmen of SAIL and, therefore, the petition should be dismissed with costs. In support of his submissions, the learned Senior Advocate placed reliance on the decisions, (a) Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Additional Member Board of Revenue, Bihar and Anr. , A. I. R. 1963 SC 786, (b) Hussainbhai, Calicut v. The Alath Factory Thezhilali Union Khozhikode, A. I. R. 1978 SC 1410, (c) Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim and Ors. A. I. R. 1984 SC 38, (d) Sadhu Ram v. Delhi Transport Corporation, A. I. R. 1984 SC 1467, (e) Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Ors. 1986 (1) G. L. R. 410, (f) Umaji Keshao Meshram and Ors. v. Smt. Radhikabai and Anr. , A. I. R. 1986 SC 1272, (g) Catering Cleaners of Southern Railway v. Union of India and Anr. , A. I. R. 1987 SC 777, (h) Kendriya Karamchari Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Ltd. and Anr. v. The New Okha Industrial Development Authority and Ors. , A. I. R. 1988 SC 1, (i) Calcutta Port Shramik Union v. The Calcutta River Transport Association and Ors. , A. I. R. 1988 SC 2168, (j) Sankar Mukherjee and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. , A. I. R. 1990 SC 532, (k) Gujarat Mazdoor Panchayat v. State of Gujarat and Ors. , 1991 (2) G. L. R. 1354. , (l) Gujarat Electricity Board, Thermal Power Station, Ukai v. Hind Mazdoor Sabha and Ors. , A. I. R. 1995 SC 1893, (m) Food Corporation of India Workers Union v. Food Corporation of India and Anr. , (1996) 9 SCC 439 , (n) Secretary, Haryana State Electricity Board v. Suresh and Ors. , A. I. R. 1999 SC 1160, (o) Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. and Anr. v. Shramik Sena and Ors. , A. I. R. 1999 SC 2577, (p) Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. K. V. Shramik Sangh and Ors. (2002) 4 SCC 609 , and (q) M/s. Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited v. State of U. P. and Ors. , (2003) 6 SCC 528 = 2003 AIR SCW 3469. v. Shramik Sena and Ors. , A. I. R. 1999 SC 2577, (p) Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. K. V. Shramik Sangh and Ors. (2002) 4 SCC 609 , and (q) M/s. Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited v. State of U. P. and Ors. , (2003) 6 SCC 528 = 2003 AIR SCW 3469. ( 16 ) THIS Court has considered the arguments advanced by all the three learned Senior Advocates at length and in great detail, as well as documentary and oral evidence adduced by the parties before the Tribunal and also the documents forming part of Special Civil Application No. 10225 of 1996. Though several decisions have been cited at the Bar for guidance of the Court, the Court does not propose to deal with all of them in detail and burden unnecessarily the judgment which is otherwise also lengthy because the question posed for consideration of the Court has to be decided with reference to the facts and circumstances as emerging from the record of the case. ( 17 ) THE position of law, which emerges from the reported decisions of the Supreme Court, is that workmen working under a contractor are entitled to raise a demand that they should be declared as workmen of the principal employer. It is always open to the workmen concerned to place materials before the industrial adjudicator to show that the contract between the principal employer and the contract labourer is sham or not genuine, and claim declaration that they were always the employees of the principal employer and are entitled to appropriate service conditions. When such a dispute is raised, it is not a dispute for abolition of labour contract. Hence, the provisions of Section 10 of the Act will not bar either the raising, or the adjudication, of such a dispute. When such a dispute is raised, industrial adjudicator has to decide whether the contract is sham or genuine. It is only if adjudicator comes to a conclusion that the contract is sham, then he will have jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. If however, he comes to a conclusion that the contract is genuine, he will have to dismiss the reference and may refer the workmen to the appropriate Government for abolition of contract labour under Section 10 of the Act. If however, he comes to a conclusion that the contract is genuine, he will have to dismiss the reference and may refer the workmen to the appropriate Government for abolition of contract labour under Section 10 of the Act. In the light of abovereferred to principles of law, the dispute raised in the petition will have to be considered by this Court. However, before resolving the dispute raised in the petition, it would be relevant to advert to oral evidence adduced by the parties before the Tribunal. ( 18 ) MR. DHANU Prasad Ram Ajor was examined by the respondent No. 1 at Exhibit 10. He has stated in his evidence that he is working in the stockyard of SAIL since 18 years and that, in all, 160 workers are employed. According to him, the workmen are doing the work of loading, unloading, shifting, stacking, sorting, etc. of materials belonging to the company, which are received from Rourkela, Bokaro, Durgapur, Bhilai, etc. by rail/road. The witness has explained that the yard belongs to SAIL and electrical poles erected therein also belong to SAIL and SAIL pays electricity bill. It is also stated by him that tracks on which racks arrive in the yard belong to the company and the office building situated in the yard also belongs to SAIL. The witness has mentioned that the goods received are sold from the stockyard and that the workmen after unloading the goods from the rack, load the same again in trucks belonging to the consumers after sale is effected. The witness has also claimed that after unloading of the goods from wagons, the same are stacked at the places as instructed by the officers of SAIL. The witness has claimed that the goods are being stacked and kept either at the bottom or at the top as per instructions of Superintendent of SAIL. It is further mentioned by him that Superintendent of SAIL decides as to which goods should be kept where and, accordingly, the goods are stacked. According to this witness, after sale is effected, the company, i. e. SAIL, issues instructions in writing and as per those instructions, goods are required to be loaded in a particular truck. The witness has mentioned in the evidence that each worker has to work for eight hours a day in the yard of SAIL and the yard continues it activities for 24 hours. The witness has mentioned in the evidence that each worker has to work for eight hours a day in the yard of SAIL and the yard continues it activities for 24 hours. According to this witness, provident fund of the workers concerned is being deducted from the year 1980 and there are some workers, who are rendering services before he joined the service. The witness has mentioned that Mangadhram was the contractor when he joined the service, after which Nebrus was appointed as contractor and thereafter, Intercity was the contractor, after which, Nitex came as contractor and then, Western Retainers, Durga Crane Company, Shri Chand Rolling Mills, Bhatia Company, R. C. Gupta and Bardhan and Company came as contractors. What is asserted by him is that though the contractors have been changed from time to time, workers have remained the same. The witness has stated that the workers do not know as to when contractors are changed. It is also asserted that there are workers in the plants of SAIL who perform the same duties as are being performed by the workmen in the stockyard located at Kaligam. The witness has claimed that the workmen working in the stockyard were not paid wages, allowances, other benefits, etc. which were paid to the workers discharging same duties in the plants of SAIL. What is emphasised by the witness examined by the respondent No. 1 is that if the workmen stop work in the stockyard, SAIL cannot sell the goods. It is also mentioned by this witness that there are many cranes in the yard, and they are also being operated by the workmen employed in the stockyard. In cross-examination, the witness has stated that the contractor pays salary to the workmen, but the amount of salary is made available to the contractor by SAIL. It is further stated by the witness that the contractor deposits provident fund amount and contributory provident fund of the employer, and muster roll is of SAIL, but Pay Register and Presence Register are of the contractor. According to this witness, the contractor carries out the work of loading and unloading the goods of SAIL. The witness has denied the suggestion made by the petitioner that there was no supervision of SAIL on the work of contractor. According to this witness, the contractor carries out the work of loading and unloading the goods of SAIL. The witness has denied the suggestion made by the petitioner that there was no supervision of SAIL on the work of contractor. In cross-examination, the witness has maintained that the workers stack goods as instructed by Superintendent of the company, and further claimed that there are about 10 to 12 Superintendents of SAIL discharging duties in the stockyard. What is asserted by the witness in cross is that though SAIL has given the work contract, the entire work is being carried out under the supervision of Superintendents of SAIL. ( 19 ) ON behalf of Bardhan and Co. , Mr. Rajeshsing Shyamkishoresing was examined at Exhibit 20. He claimed that he was Manager of Bardhan and Co. since 1993 and that SAIL had accepted tender of Bardhan and Co. in respect of handling of materials at the stockyard located at Kaligam. This witness has mentioned that according to the agreement with SAIL, loading and unloading of materials is to be done by Bardhan and Co. , and that Bardhan and Co. was paid at the rate of Rs. 57=00 per ton. After stating that about 150 workmen are engaged for the entire work, it is claimed by the witness that salary to the workers was paid by Bardhan and Co. and even Presence Register was maintained by Bardhan and Co. . The witness has further claimed that provident fund was also deducted from the monthly salary of the workmen and that Bardhan and Co. was supervising the work of the workmen. In cross-examination, the witness admitted that the workmen were working in the stockyard prior to 1993, and that provident fund of the employees was deducted before Bardhan and Co. had started deducting the same from the wages payable to the employees. The witness further stated that Bardhan and Co. was given old code numbers of the employees which were issued by the Office of Provident Funds. It is explained by this witness that the workmen were working when Bardhan and Co. entered into an agreement with SAIL and Bardhan and Co. had merely shown the workmen on its record. The witness further stated that Bardhan and Co. was given old code numbers of the employees which were issued by the Office of Provident Funds. It is explained by this witness that the workmen were working when Bardhan and Co. entered into an agreement with SAIL and Bardhan and Co. had merely shown the workmen on its record. The witness has also admitted in his cross-examination that SAIL decides as to how the goods are to be stacked, and that the workers have to work as per instructions of the Superintendent of SAIL. The witness has explained in his cross that the goods, which are sold by SAIL, are delivered from the yard at Kaligam and that the workers load the goods in trucks. What is stated by him is that Bardhan and Co. had not taken with it the workers employed in the stockyard after expiry of the contract with SAIL and that Bardhan and Co. had nothing to do with the workers after term of the contract was over. This witness has in no uncertain terms admitted that Bardhan and Co. had not engaged 150 workers employed at the stockyard, and he had no knowledge as to when P. F. Account Number was given to the concerned workman. ( 20 ) MR. M. NARAYAN Pillai was examined by SAIL at Exhibit 22. His evidence would indicate that he is serving in SAIL since 27 years as Senior Supervisor. The witness has stated in his evidence that the goods coming from outside are received in the yard and handling contract for the goods is executed by SAIL. According to this witness, the contract in respect of handling of goods was executed with Bardhan and Co. and that the workers working in the yard are the workers of Bardhan and Co. and that Bardhan and Co. pays salary to the employees. According to this witness, Bardhan and Co. is deducting provident fund amount from the pay of concerned worker and the company has no control or supervision over the concerned workers. IN cross-examination, he admitted that he was not working in the yard and that he was not knowing the concerned workers. He further stated that he had no personal knowledge about working of the concerned workers. is deducting provident fund amount from the pay of concerned worker and the company has no control or supervision over the concerned workers. IN cross-examination, he admitted that he was not working in the yard and that he was not knowing the concerned workers. He further stated that he had no personal knowledge about working of the concerned workers. What is stated by this witness in the cross-examination is that after the goods are received in the stockyard, the concerned workers place the goods at different places as per the instructions of the Director of SAIL. He also admitted that SAIL provides tools and tackles to the workers. It was also admitted by him that some of the workers were working in the yard for more than 20 years and that though the contractors were changed, the workers were not changed. In the light of the above evidence, the question posed for consideration of this Court will have to be answered. .