ORDER This writ petition is by the Union, questioning the award in LD. No. 251 of 2002 on the file of Industrial Tribunal Bangalore, dated 4th July, 2006. 2. Petitioner-Union sought for reference of dispute and the State Government in terms of its order dated 8-11-2002 produced at Annexure-A referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal on an issue as to whether the respondent I-Municipal Council justified in not regularising the services of 250 workmen of the respondent-Municipal Council and also for not paying equal pay for equal work and also as to whether the respondent is justified in not providing uniform, footwear and other facilities. 3. Before the Industrial Tribunal, Union alleged that, they have been working for several years in the Municipality on different wages and in 1997, the Municipality started paying the salaries through the third person, calling himself as contractor. It is stated that, the Municipality being a self-Government and State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, it cannot discriminate the employees, who are similarly placed. On various grounds, the petitioner-Union claimed that, services of 250 employees required to be regularised and they should be paid equal wages on par with similarly placed other employees in the respondent-Municipal Council 4. The said claim petition was opposed by the Municipal Council on the ground that, the dispute itself is not maintainable as there is no relationship of master and servant or employer or employee. 250 members of the Union are contract labourers working under the contractor. Municipality has engaged the services of the contractor by calling for tenders and every year fresh contract is called for. The payments are made to the labourers only by the contractor and not by the Municipality. Before the Industrial Tlibunal, evidence was also led on behalf of the Union as well as on behalf of the respondent. Industrial Tribunal on considering the evidence held that, these employees are working .through the contractor and there is no relationship of employer and employee between the respondent and petitioner and dismissed the dispute. 5. Sli Narayana Bhat, learned Counsel appealing for the petitioner submitted that, in order to attract the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (in short referred to as 'the Act, respondent-Municipal Council must be registered under the provisions of the Act and the contractor must be• a licensed contractor. 5. Sli Narayana Bhat, learned Counsel appealing for the petitioner submitted that, in order to attract the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (in short referred to as 'the Act, respondent-Municipal Council must be registered under the provisions of the Act and the contractor must be• a licensed contractor. He submitted that, Municipal Council has not been registered as required under Section 7 of the Act. Further, the alleged contractor is not a licensed contractor in terms of Section 12 of the Act. In order to camouflage the real issue of employer and employee, the contractor is brought in by the Municipal Council and amount is paid through the contractor. In reality, it is the Municipal Council, which has engaged the services of these employees. He also submitted that, the alleged transaction between the Municipal Council and the contractor is a sham transaction and it is made only to escape the obligation of continuing the employment of these employees, who are otherwise required to be regularised in the service. He submitted that, even though the Municipal Council alleges that, there is a contract, but for last several years, these employees are continued in the employment and this fact is not admitted by M.W. 1 in his cross-examination. He further submitted that, if the transaction is a sham transaction and in reality if the Municipal Council is the employer, the relationship of employer and employee 'exists and these employees have served for more than 10 to 15 years, they are entitled for regularisation of their services and also for equal wages on par with other similarly placed employees. 6. In support of his contention, he relied on a judgment in the matter of Mishra Dhatu Nigam Limited v M. Venkataiah and Others] and submitted that, the Apex Court considering the case of canteen workers has held that, under the Factories Act, 1948, every industry is required to maintain a canteen and employees employed in the canteen, even if they are contract labour, they are the employees of the principal employer. Accepting such contention, Apex Court has held that, the canteen employees are the employees of the principal employer though it was a contract of employment. 7. Accepting such contention, Apex Court has held that, the canteen employees are the employees of the principal employer though it was a contract of employment. 7. He further submitted that, under Section 87 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, there is an obligation on the Municipal Council to make adequate provision for cleansing public streets, places and sewers and all spaces not being private property, which are open to the enjoyment of the public, whether such spaces are vested in the Municipal Council or not, removing noxious vegetation and abating all public nuisances and in view of the provisions of Section 87 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, the Municipal Council is under obligation to maintain the public street, etc., and for which, it is required to employ the persons. Such employees cannot become the contract labourers. He further submitted that, in reality they would be the employees of the Municipal Council He relied on another judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of General Manager, O.N.G.C. Limited, Shilchar v O.N.G.C. Contractual Workers Union I and submitted that, even in case of one of the employees collecting the wages and distributing the same to other employees, either as a contractor or without contract, that does not change the nature of employment, even if the contractor has no licence the employees engaged by him will partake the character of employees of the principal employer. He submitted that, the judgment in the matter of Steel Authority of India Limited and Others v National Union Waterfront Workers and Others', is considered by the Apex Court in the case of Mishra Dhatu Nigam Limited and further submitted that, the Industrial Tribunal in utter disregard to the provisions of the Act and also the provisions of the Karnataka Municipalities Act and the evidence on record has erroneously found that, there is no relationship of employer and employee. 8. 8. Sri V. Srinivas Raghavan, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent I-Municipal Council submitted that, respondent-Municipal Council is governed by the provisions of Karnataka Municipalities Act and the State Government has power to issue direction to the Municipal Council It is in this regard, a circular dated 8-2-1994 has been issued by the State Government inter alia permitting the Municipal Council to call for tenders for the purpose of allotting the cleaning work to the contractor and it is in pursuance of the said notification for last several years, the Municipal Council is calling for tenders every year and accordingly, it is awarding the contract to the contractor for cleaning purpose. He also submitted that, the petitioner-Union itself was applicant to one of such tenders and they were awarded with the contract. He submitted that, Municipal Council is not registered under the provisions of the Act nor the contractor is a licensed contractor under the provisions of the Act. However, the tenders are called in pursuance of the circular and work is allotted to the contractor and it is through contractor, Municipal Council is extracting the work. There is no direct relationship between the Municipal Council and the employees. He also submitted that, entire wages and other emoluments are paid by the contractor and not by the Municipal Council He submitted that, merely because the contractor has no licence and the Municipal Council is not registered under the provisions of the Act, that by itsalf will not confer any status on the employees of the contractor as employees of the Municipal Council If the contract itself is not in consonance with the provisions of the Act, it will not give any right or privilege to the employees or the Union to claim any better status than what they had under the contractor. 9. AB far as violation of the provisions of Section 7 or Section 12 of the Act is concerned, he relied on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Limited and Others National Union Watefront Workers and Others. He referred to para 105 of the said judgment and submitted that, there is no automatic absorption of contract labour as a consequence of issuing notification under Section 10, sub-section (1) by the appropriate Government or for violation of Sections 7 and 12 of the Act. He referred to para 105 of the said judgment and submitted that, there is no automatic absorption of contract labour as a consequence of issuing notification under Section 10, sub-section (1) by the appropriate Government or for violation of Sections 7 and 12 of the Act. He submitted that, the employees of the canteen of a factory stand on different footing in view of the statutory compulsion, the management is required to maintain a canteen in the industry. Under such circumstances, the Apex Court has held that, such employees would be the employees of the principal employer and the said aspect is also considered by the Apex Court in Steel Authority of India Limited and Others u National Union Waterfront Workers and Others case at para 107. He submitted that, even assuming that, there is no licence to the contractor and the Municipal Council is not registered under Section 7 of the Act, for the violation of such provisions, no consequence is provided under the Act. In the absence of any consequence, it cannot be held that, the employees would become employees of the Municipal Council, at the best they are the employees of the contractor. 10. He further submitted that, witness examined on behalf of the Union has admitted that, they are working under the contractor and the payments are made only by the contractor. In the light of the admission and in the light of the regular contracts executed by the Municipal Council in pursuance of the tenders called for in terms of the Government circular, there is no relationship of master and servant or employer and employee. He further submitted that, the issue referred by the Government to the Industrial Tribunal is something other than the dispute existing between the parties. There is a serious dispute as to whether they are contract employees or not, however, the Government treats them as employees of the Municipal Council and refers an issue for regularisation. 11. He further submitted that, the issue referred by the Government to the Industrial Tribunal is something other than the dispute existing between the parties. There is a serious dispute as to whether they are contract employees or not, however, the Government treats them as employees of the Municipal Council and refers an issue for regularisation. 11. He further, submitted that, the dispute itself is not maintainable particularly when the Municipality's case is that, the contractor, who has engaged the services of these employees and when the said issue is to be adjudicated, the contractor being not made party to the dispute, the dispute itself was not maintainable before the Industrial Tribunal and the Industrial Tribunal considering the evidence on record has given a finding that, there is no relationship of employer and employee. In such circumstances, the scope for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very limited as what is decided is based on facts. 12. It is not in dispute that, Union sought for reference of dispute in respect of 250 of its members. It has come in the evidence of W.W. 1 that, the employees have received the wages through the contractor. It has also come in the evidence that, for one term, association itself bid the tender and had the contract for cleaning with the employees. 13. Insofar as the licence of the contractor is concerned, even assuming that, the employees of non-licensed contractor are engaged by the Municipal Council, the question is as to whether the persons working under such contractor will automatically become employees of the Municipal Council for want of a valid contract. This issue though directly not fallen for consideration before the Apex Court, in Steel Authority of India Limited and Others v National Union Waterfront Workers and Others case, while adverting to other issues, the Apex Court did consider the consequence flow from unregistered employer and the contractor without licence and has observed at para 105 of the said judgment as under: "105. The principle that a beneficial legislation needs to be construed liberally in favour of the class for whose benefit it is intended, does not extend to reading in the provisions of the Act what the Legislature has not provided whether expressly or by necessary implication, or substituting remedy or benefits for that provided by the Legislature. The principle that a beneficial legislation needs to be construed liberally in favour of the class for whose benefit it is intended, does not extend to reading in the provisions of the Act what the Legislature has not provided whether expressly or by necessary implication, or substituting remedy or benefits for that provided by the Legislature. We have already noticed above the intendment of the CLRA Act that it regulates the conditions of service of the contract labour and authorises in Section 10(1) prohibition of contract labour system by the appropriate Government on consideration of factors enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Act among other relevant factors. But, the presence of some or all those factors, in our view, provides no ground for absorption of contract labour on issuing notification under sub-section (1) of Section 10. Admittedly, when the concept of automatic absorption of contract labour as a consequence of issuing notification under Section 10(1) by the appropriate Government, is not alluded to either in Section 10 or at any other place in the Act and the consequence of violation of Sections 7 and 12 of the CLRA Act is explicitly provided in Sections 23 and 25 of the CLRA Act, it is not for the High Courts or this Court to read in some unspecified remedy in Section 10 or substitute for penal consequences specified in Sections 23 and 25 a different sequel, be it absorption of contract labour in the establishment of principal employer or a lesser or a harsher punishment. Such an interpretation of the provisions of the statute will be far beyond the principle of ironing out the creases and the scope of interpretative legislation and as such, clearly impermissible. We have already held above, on consideration of various aspects, that it is difficult to accept that Parliament intended absorption of contract labour on issue of abolition notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act". 14. It is also well-settled law that, what is not provided under the Act cannot come automatically. If the licence is not taken by the contractor, it will not give any right to an employee working under him to get their services regularised under the principal employer. They may have the grievance against the contractor not against the employer, as there cannot be any relationship of the employer and employee between the Municipal Council and the contract labour. They may have the grievance against the contractor not against the employer, as there cannot be any relationship of the employer and employee between the Municipal Council and the contract labour. 15. The decision cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in respect of the canteen workers of the factories is concerned, the said issue was also considered by the Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Limited and Others v National Union Waterfront Workers and Others case and at para 107, it has held that, in case of canteen workers, they stand on different footing and they may be the employees of the principal employer and in cases where the employees are working under the labour contractor, such employees will not be governed by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 16. Only in case if the transaction is sham or entered into to camouflage the real relationship, in such circumstances, alone the Industrial Tribunal can give a finding. But in this case, even on evidence, the Union admits that, the amounts are paid by the contractor and there is no direct payment by the Municipal Council and further, it is admitted that, the petitioner itself was a contractor, in such circumstances, petitioner" itself having availed the contract from the Municipal Council, it cannot turn round and say that, contract labour are the employees of the Municipal Council. Even if they are the employees under the contractor having no licence under the Act, they will not get the status of employee of the Municipal Council. 17. The relief sought for by the Union is for regularisation. It is not in dispute that, Municipal Council is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and every recruitment of employees must be in pursuance of the rules and regulation. No indirect method of recruitment is permissible and it will be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 18. It is not in dispute that, Municipal Council is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and every recruitment of employees must be in pursuance of the rules and regulation. No indirect method of recruitment is permissible and it will be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 18. Further, insofar equal wages for equal work is concerned, if they are working under contractor, the contractor is responsible for payment of legal wages and not the Municipal Council and in this regard, even the learned government Advocate referred to a judgment of the Apex Court in the 'matter of Steel Authority of India Limited and Another v State of West Bengal and Others, at para 8 and submitted that, the concept of equal pay for equal work is not applicable to the contractor labour. The Apex Court relied on another decision in the matter of State of Haryana and Others v Charanjit Singh and Others\ wherein, the Apex Court has observed as under: "22. One other fact which must be noted is that Civil Appeal Nos. 6648,6647,6572 and 6570 of 2002 do not deal with casual or daily-rated workers. These are cases of persons employed on contract. To such persons the principles of equal pay for equal work has no application. The Full Bench judgment dealt only with daily-rated and casual workers. Where a person is employed under a contract, it is the contract which will govern the terms and conditions of service. In the case of State of Haryana v Surinder Kumar and Others, (1997) 3 SCC 633 , persons employed on contract basis claimed equal pay as regular workers on the footing that their posts were interchangeable. It was held that these persons had no right to the regular posts until they are duly selected and appointed. It was held that they were not entitled to the same pay as regular employees by claiming that they are discharging the same duties. It was held that the very object of selection is to test the eligibility and then to make appointment in accordance with the rules. It was held that the respondents had not been recruited in accordance with the rules prescribed for recruitment". 19. It was held that the very object of selection is to test the eligibility and then to make appointment in accordance with the rules. It was held that the respondents had not been recruited in accordance with the rules prescribed for recruitment". 19. In the light of the same, when there is no relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner and the respondent and further any claim even in case of valid contract, it is only the contractor is responsible for payment of equal pay for equal work and insofar as Municipal Council is concerned, their obligation is to pay the contractual amount agreed between the contractor and the Municipal Council. 20. Apart from this, when there is a serious dispute as regard to the nature of employment, to prove that the contract is a sham, the contractor was a necessary party. Admittedly he has not been impleaded in the dispute and further, the evidence on record also do not show that the transaction is sham or otherwise, particularly when one of the contract was bid by the petitioner-Union itself. In these circumstances, in my opinion, the issue referred itself is misconceived and further even if it is an issue as regard to the regularisation of service of contract employees, it is impermissible in law particularly against the Municipal Council Hence, I find no merit in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and same is dismissed.