Judgment : C.R. Dash, J. As all the six writ petitions arise out of the common award passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Sambalpur in I.D. Case No.18 of 2000 and common Reference dated 06.03.2000 made by the appropriate Government, they are taken up together for disposal by this common order. 2. The petitioners, namely, Sobhan Kumar Mishra, Bailochan Mahakud, Dillip Kumar Mohanty, Bipin Bihari Chhatria, Prahallad Tandi and Abhimanyu Bag have preferred the aforesaid writ petitions bearing No.17543 of 2010, 17544 of 2010, 17545 of 2010, 17546 of 2010, 17547 of 2010 and 17548 of 2010 respectively. All of them were employees of M/s. Mishra Enterprises. M/s. Mishra Enterprises was a Contractor engaged by the Central Power Training Institute (“C.P.T.I.” for short), a Unit of Rourkela Steel Plant (“R.S.P.” for short) situated at Rourkela. On 15.07.1993 C.P.T.I. was opened and on 21.07.1993 M/s. Mishra Enterprises was engaged as a Contractor. Said M/s. Mishra Enterprises engaged eight labourers including the present petitioners (six in number) in order to clean toilets, latrines, bath-rooms, over-head tank, tables, chairs, other furniture, peripheral areas of the institute besides attending to other jobs of the said Institute. Though the petitioners were labourers engaged by M/s. Mishra Enterprises, they were working under the direct control and supervision of opposite party no.1. Auction for the contract was on yearly basis, and M/s. Mishra Enterprises continued on year to year basis till 24.10.1997 to work for the C.P.T.I. through contract. M/s. Mishra Enterprises was asked vide Letter dated 12.10.1995 to provide all the facilities to its labourers, as provided by the Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL for short). On 22.10.1997 the labour contract was given to another Contractor namely M/s. S.K. Acharya, but subsequently his contract was cancelled and the petitioners, in view of change of Contractor, faced retrenchment. Industrial dispute was raised by the petitioners through Rourkela Shramika Sangha (a Labour Union active in Rourkela Steel Plant). 3. The appropriate Government under Section 10 (1) read with Section 12 (5) of the I.D. Act, vide its Memo No.3321 (7), dated 06.03.2000, made the following Reference for adjudication by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Sambalpur. Industrial dispute was raised by the petitioners through Rourkela Shramika Sangha (a Labour Union active in Rourkela Steel Plant). 3. The appropriate Government under Section 10 (1) read with Section 12 (5) of the I.D. Act, vide its Memo No.3321 (7), dated 06.03.2000, made the following Reference for adjudication by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Sambalpur. “Whether the action of the Management of M/s. Mishra Enterprises and M/s. Jai Maa Santoshi Enterprises terminating the services of Sri B.B. Chatriya, A. Bag, P.K. Rout, B. Mohanty, S. Mishra, P.K. Tandi, C. Suna and B. Mahakud (workers of M/s. Mishra Enterprises) and Sri D.R. Sen and Sri S. Samal (workers of Jai Maa Santoshi Enterprises) is legal and justified. If not, what relief they are entitled to and whether they can be regular employees of Central Power Training Institute ?” Basing upon the pleadings of the parties, learned Labour Court, Sambalpur framed the following issues for adjudication :- (1) Whether the action of the Management of M/s. Mishra Enterprises and M/s. Jai Maa Santoshi Enterprises terminating the services of Sri B.B. Chatriya, A. Bag, P.K. Rout, B. Mohanty, S. Mishra, P.K. Tandi, C. Suna and B. Mahakud (workers of M/s. Mishra Enterprises and Sri D.R. Sen and Sri S. Samal (workers of Jai Maa Santoshi Enterprises) is legal and justified ? (2) To what relief they are entitled to and whether they can be regular employees of Central Power Training Institute ? 4. On 30.09.2000 learned Labour Court passed an award declaring that the termination of services of the concerned workmen by the Management of M/s. Mishra Enterprises is illegal and unjustified and there was violation of the provisions contained in Section 25-F of the I.D. Act, and directed to pay the unpaid wages and all other legal dues of the workmen along with a consolidated sum of Rs.5,000/- (five thousand) to each of the workmen towards interest and litigation expenses. Being aggrieved with the order, the concerned employer, i.e. M/s. Mishra Enterprises preferred a writ petition bearing number W.P. (C) No.6275 of 2002 and simultaneously the concerned workmen also filed a writ petition bearing number W.P. (C) No.4163 of 2003. Both the writ petitions were heard analogously and the matter was remitted back to the P.O., Labour Court, Sambalpur for disposal afresh, after providing opportunities of hearing to the parties. 5. Upon remand, the petitioners filed a consolidated statement of claim. Both the writ petitions were heard analogously and the matter was remitted back to the P.O., Labour Court, Sambalpur for disposal afresh, after providing opportunities of hearing to the parties. 5. Upon remand, the petitioners filed a consolidated statement of claim. In their consolidated statement of claim the workmen basically alleged that – (i) On 15.07.1993 C.P.T.I. was open and on 21.07.1993 M/s. Mishra Enterprises was engaged as a Contractor. (ii) M/s. Mishra Enterprises, in turn, engaged eight labourers for cleaning toilets, latrines, bath-rooms, over-head tank, tables, chairs, other furniture, peripheral areas of the institute besides attending to other jobs of the said Institute. (iii) Though the petitioners were engaged by M/s. Mishra Enterprises, they were working under the direct control and supervision of the C.P.T.I. (opp. party no.1). (iv) After their termination, different Labour Contractors were engaged from time to time. (v) The jobs carried out by the second party workmen were permanent and perennial in nature. (vi) The contract between C.P.T.I. and M/s. Mishra Enterprises was a sham contract. (vii) No charge-sheet or no notice pay was provided prior to termination of services of the petitioners. As such, the termination is illegal. 6. The basic facts, on which the petitioners relied on, are that though admittedly they were engaged by M/s. Mishra Enterprises, they were working under the direct control and supervision of the C.P.T.I. The contract between M/s. Mishra Enterprises and the C.P.T.I. is a sham contract and the work in which they were engaged being perennial and permanent in nature, they should be regularized in their services by the C.P.T.I. 7. M/s. Mishra Enterprises entered appearance and took the plea that after expiry of the contract on 24.10.1997 there was no scope for the Company to engage the second party workmen in the C.P.T.I. He however sent notices to all his labourers including the petitioners to receive their final settlement dues, but the workmen did not turn up and their dues, in spite of intendment by the contractor, i.e. M/s. Mishra Enterprises, could not be paid. The C.P.T.I. in its written statement took the plea that there does not exist any master – servant relationship between the C.P.T.I. and the second party workmen, for which the Reference is not maintainable. The C.P.T.I. being not the employer, name of the C.P.T.I. be struck off from the proceeding. The C.P.T.I. in its written statement took the plea that there does not exist any master – servant relationship between the C.P.T.I. and the second party workmen, for which the Reference is not maintainable. The C.P.T.I. being not the employer, name of the C.P.T.I. be struck off from the proceeding. The second party workmen or the Union representing them are not entitled to raise the dispute in question. The basic facts which have been pleaded by the C.P.T.I. (Management) are that – (1) M/s. Mishra Enterprises was engaged on year to year basis as a Contractor to engage labourers for the work assigned to it. (2) The C.P.T.I. had no role to play so far as selection of the workmen is concerned, and the C.P.T.I. at no point of time had been supervising the work of the second party workmen. (3) The Contractor used to make payment to the labourers, who were engaged by him, for execution of the job. (4) The contract between M/s. Mishra Enterprises and the C.P.T.I. is a genuine contract, which has come to an end by efflux of time. (5) The C.P.T.I. or SAIL or R.S.P. has never exercised any control over the affairs of M/s. Mishra Enterprises, a Labour Contractor. (6) The C.P.T.I., SAIL & R.S.P. being Central Public Sector Undertakings, have their own rules and regulations for recruitment, without following which absorption is not permissible. (7) For employment in the Rourkela Steel Plant, one has to pass a qualifying test as well as interview test subject to vacancy. 8. On behalf of the second party workmen, Bipin Bihari Chhatriya, one of the workmen was examined as W.W.1 and he filed documents which are marked as Exhibits A to M. On behalf of C.P.T.I. three witnesses were examined. M.W.1 is the Senior Deputy Director, C.P.T.I., Rourkela, M.W.2 is the Deputy General Manager, C.P.T.I., Rourkela, M.W.3 is the A.G.M., C.P.T.I., Rourkela. The C.P.T.I. also relied on some documents, which are marked as Exhibits 1 to 8. One Subodh Kumar Mishra was examined as M.W.1 on behalf of M/s. Mishra Enterprises and documents vide Exhibit - I to Exhibit XIV were marked on their behalf. 9. The C.P.T.I. also relied on some documents, which are marked as Exhibits 1 to 8. One Subodh Kumar Mishra was examined as M.W.1 on behalf of M/s. Mishra Enterprises and documents vide Exhibit - I to Exhibit XIV were marked on their behalf. 9. On consideration of the evidence on record and the pleadings of the parties, learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Sambalpur passed the award holding that the action of the Management of M/s. Mishra Enterprises and M/s. Jai Maa Santoshi Enterprises in terminating the services of the workmen including the present petitioners is legal and justified. They are not regular employees of the C.P.T.I. But all the above workmen are entitled to get their settlement dues from the Contractor M/s. Mishra Enterprises towards their work. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners impugns the award on the ground that the learned P.O., Labour Court has not taken into consideration the fact that all the petitioners were working under the direct control of the C.P.T.I. and hence they are the employees of the C.P.T.I. and the contract between M/s. Mishra Enterprises and the C.P.T.I. is a sham contract, as M/s. Mishra Enterprises is only a name-lender to supply labour force to the C.P.T.I. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the nature of work performed by the petitioners being permanent and perennial in nature, it was incumbent on the Management of the C.P.T.I. to regularize the services of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the cases of Dayanidhi Sahu vrs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Sambalpur and others, 2013 (II) OLR – 235, The Management of Prajatantra Prachar Samity vrs. Cuttack Press Workers Union, Cuttack and another, 2012 (II) OLR – 712, Md. Moinuddin vrs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar and another, 2013 (I) OLR – 427, State of Haryana and others, etc. etc. vrs. Piara Singh and others etc. etc., AIR 1992 SC 2130 , Devinder Singh vrs. Municipal Council, Sanaur, AIR 2011 SC 2532 , and Des Raj etc. vrs. State of Punjab and others, AIR 1988 SC 1182 . 11. Learned counsel for the C.P.T.I. on the other hand submits that there being no error apparent on the face of the record or patent illegality in the impugned award, no interference is called for in a certiorari proceeding. vrs. State of Punjab and others, AIR 1988 SC 1182 . 11. Learned counsel for the C.P.T.I. on the other hand submits that there being no error apparent on the face of the record or patent illegality in the impugned award, no interference is called for in a certiorari proceeding. The petitioners while preferring the writ petitions have not specifically asserted as to what are the specific grounds to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners by harping on the point that the petitioners were working under the direct supervision of the C.P.T.I. and the work they were discharging are permanent and perennial in nature, have travelled beyond their claim and term of reference by invoking the statutory provisions under Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (“C.L.R.A. Act” for short). It is further submitted that the adjudicating authority has no jurisdiction to decide whether the jobs carried out by the petitioners are permanent and perennial in nature under the provisions of Section 10 of the C.L.R.A. Act, especially in view of the fact that such a decision rests on the appropriate Government. 12. As outlined supra, learned Labour Court has framed two Issues. Under Issue No.1, the learned Labour Court has held thus :- “…..The First-Party management has absolutely no role to play any selection or appointment of those second-party workmen. M/s. S.K. Acharya, who became the lowest bidder in the tender, the said contractor being an independent contractor has not executed the work. So, there was no scope for engaging any workman. It is an admitted fact that the second-party workmen were engaged by the Contractor M/s. Mishra Enterprises and terminated after closure of the contract work with effect from 24.10.1997. So, the evidence led by the M.Ws. corroborated along with their documents. So, there was no scope for engaging any workman. It is an admitted fact that the second-party workmen were engaged by the Contractor M/s. Mishra Enterprises and terminated after closure of the contract work with effect from 24.10.1997. So, the evidence led by the M.Ws. corroborated along with their documents. The Contractor M/s. Mishra Enterprise stated in his evidence, which is corroborated the documentary evidence disclosed that the Contractor has issued notice to its labourers one month prior to expiry of each of its contract intimating them to receive their final settlement dues as per the notice dated 19.09.1995 and 17.09.1996 (Ext.XIV) and Notice Dtd.24.09.1997 and Dtd.06.11.1997 (Ext.7) and copies served on the C.P.T.I. Ext.XII and Ext.XIII disclose that the contractor M/s. Mishra Enterprise has brought this matter to the notice of the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Rourkela from time to time along with statement of final settlement dues like Leave Wages, Unpaid Wages, Bonus, Retrenchment Compensation, etc. offered by him, but the Second-party workmen did not turn up to receive these payments, which is also clear from the evidence of other witnesses. However, as the second-party workmen were not engaged / appointed by the C.P.T.I., they cannot claim their permanent job under the C.P.T.I. So, in view of the said facts and circumstances, the C.P.T.I. is not responsible for the job of the second-party workmen nor the C.P.T.I. is the Appointing Authority of the second-party workmen. So, the second-party workmen being engaged by the contractor M/s. Mishra Enterprise were working under the full control of M/s. Mishra Enterprise and they were also terminated from their job on closure of its contract with C.P.T.I. with effect from 24.10.1997. So, the action of the management of M/s. Mishra Enterprise and M/s. Jai Maa Santoshi Enterprise in terminating the services of the second-party workmen (Workers of M/s. Mishra Enterprise) is legal and justified.” Coming to the second Issue, i.e. Issue No.ii, learned Labour Court, in paragraph-16 has discussed in detail the evidence on record and has held thus – “It is alleged from the evidence of the Contractor M/s. Mishra Enterprise that he has provided employment cards Ext.J to Ext.J/3 to each of the labourers and was maintaining their Attendance Register through his Supervisor Sri Sahu and used to get the same certified by the officers of the C.P.T.I. for the purpose of billing. So, the claim of the second-party workmen that the officials of C.P.T.I. were looking after their job work by putting their signatures in the Attendance Register and Attendance Cards appears to be false. It is further alleged from the evidence of the Contractor M/s. Mishra Enterprise that he used to disburse wages to all his labourers in presence of C.P.T.I. authority. E.S.I. No. and E.P.F. sub-code No.RO-585 and E.P.F. contributions in respect of each of the employees engaged by him were being deposited with E.S.I. and E.P.F. authorities from time to time during the period of contract. All his labourers have distinct E.S.I. number and E.P.F. number allotted by the authority concerned from their wages and the total amount was deposited with the E.P.F. authority. He used to raise bills along with all necessary documents, i.e. documents showing job completion certificate from C.P.T.I. authority, wage sheet, E.S.I. deposit and E.P.F. deposit to C.P.T.I. and the bills have been settled as per the contract accepting the final bill after expiry of the last contract. As alleged from the evidence on record as well as documentary proof, after expiry of each contract the Contractor M/s. Mishra Enterprise had issued notice to all his labourers including the second-party workmen to collect their final dues and at the end of expiry of the contract on Dtd.24.10.1997 he issued notice before one month intimating to all his workers to receive the final payment / dues on 5.11.1997 (A.N.). The labourers did not turn up to receive their final dues. Non-disbursement of wages also witnessed by the C.P.T.I. authority, which is apparent from the documents. Thereafter, the contractor M/s. Mishra Enterprise again tendered payment of final dues by Notice Dtd.6.11.1997, but the workmen did not turn up to receive their final dues. He had intimated this fact to the Dy. Labour Commissioner, Rourkela vide his letter Dtd.20.11.1997. As alleged, the contractor M/s. Mishra Enterprise closed his establishment in C.P.T.I. on 25.10.1997 after expiry of the Contract on 24.10.1997. So, there was no scope for him to engage the second-party workmen after 24.10.1997. However, he used to send notice to all his labourers to receive their final settlement dues, but the workmen did not turn up. So, the second-party workmen have not received their final settlement dues from the contractor M/s. Mishra Enterprise in spite of several notices issued to them. However, he used to send notice to all his labourers to receive their final settlement dues, but the workmen did not turn up. So, the second-party workmen have not received their final settlement dues from the contractor M/s. Mishra Enterprise in spite of several notices issued to them. In view of the said facts and circumstances, the second-party workmen are only entitled to get their wages from the Contractor M/s. Mishra Enterprise, but they are not entitled to be reinstated in their job. So, they are not the regular employees of C.P.T.I. Accordingly, issue No.ii is answered. Hence the award.” 13. From the findings, as aforesaid, it is clear that learned Labour Court, on scrutiny of the evidence, has come to the findings that there existed no master-servant relationship between the C.P.T.I. and the petitioners, the petitioners were engaged by the contractor M/s. Mishra Enterprises and M/s. Mishra Enterprises is liable to make payment to the petitioners. It has further been held that there has been no contravention of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act, as M/s. Mishra Enterprises had given sufficient notice to the petitioners and other workers to receive the pay one month prior to termination of its contract with C.P.T.I., but the petitioners and other workmen did not turn up to receive the same. Learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court however has not at all touched the point as to whether the contract between C.P.T.I. and M/s. Mishra Enterprises was a sham contract and whether the petitioners can be regularized in the C.P.T.I. 14. Hon?ble Supreme Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others, etc. etc., vrs. National Union Water Front Workers and others, etc., AIR 2001 SC 3527 , in paragraph-122 has held thus :- “122. Hon?ble Supreme Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others, etc. etc., vrs. National Union Water Front Workers and others, etc., AIR 2001 SC 3527 , in paragraph-122 has held thus :- “122. xx xx xx (5) On issuance of prohibition notification under S. 10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment of contract labour or otherwise, in an industrial dispute brought before it by any contract labour in regard to conditions of service, the industrial adjudicator will have to consider the question whether the contractor has been interposed either on the ground of having undertaken to produce any given result for the establishment or for supply of contract labour for work of the establishment under a genuine contract or is a mere ruse / camouflage to evade compliance of various beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workers of the benefit thereunder. If the contract is found to be genuine but a mere camouflage, the so-called contract labour will have to be treated as employees of the principal employer who shall be directed to regularize the services of the contract labour in the concerned establishment subject to conditions as may be specified by it for the purpose………... xx xx xx” 15. Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Bhilwara Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari s. Ltd. vrs. Vinod Kumar Sharma (Dead) By L.Rs. & Ors., 2011 (5) Supreme 737 , refused to interfere with the findings of the Hon’ble High Court as subterfuge was resorted to by appellant (principal employer) to show that the workmen concerned were only workmen of a contractor. Labour Court held that workmen were employees of the appellant and not employees of the contractor. Cogent reasons were given by Labour Court to come to such finding. High Court refused to interfere with such finding of facts recorded by the Labour Court. No infirmity was found by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the impugned order of the High Court and the new technique of subterfuge adopted by some employers in recent years was deprecated. 16. In the present case though learned Labour Court has given a finding that prohibition notification under Section 10 (1) of the C.L.R.A. Act has not yet been issued in respect of C.P.T.I., no material on that point has been discussed. 16. In the present case though learned Labour Court has given a finding that prohibition notification under Section 10 (1) of the C.L.R.A. Act has not yet been issued in respect of C.P.T.I., no material on that point has been discussed. The reference quoted in paragraph-3 of the judgment clearly shows that there are two limbs in the reference; the first limb refers to action of M/s. Mishra Enterprises etc. in terminating the services of the petitioners, and the second limb reflects on the entitlement of the petitioners to claim regularization under the C.P.T.I. The petitioners being admittedly employees of M/s. Mishra Enterprises, a Labour Contractor, the question which could have been decided was whether the contract between C.P.T.I. and M/s. Mishra Enterprises is a sham contract, and whether the petitioners can be regular employees of the C.P.T.I. Learned Labour Court has not at all addressed this issue. This being a pure question of fact cannot also be decided in a writ petition. The parties may be required to adduce evidence also on this point. 17. In view of such fact, I feel constrained to remand the matter for decision of the Labour Court on the aforesaid point. The petitioners are without job since 1997. They must be fighting litigations with much pain and financial stringency. Taking into consideration the plight of the petitioners, I direct the Management of the C.P.T.I. to pay Rs.30,000/- (rupees thirty thousand) to each of the petitioners within 15 (fifteen) days of the appearance of the parties before the Labour Court, Sambalpur or within such further time as extended by the learned Labour Court on proper application being filed to that effect. The aforesaid payment shall be over and above the payment to be made by M/s. Mishra Enterprises. Parties are directed to appear before the Labour Court, Sambalpur on 30.04.2015. Learned Labour Court is directed to dispose of the proceeding on the issue, as aforesaid, within six months from the date of filing of additional pleadings, if any, by the parties. 18. Before parting with the order, I feel persuaded to mention here that I have discussed none of the citations relied on by learned counsel for the petitioners during discussion of the matter, as none of the case cited by learned counsel for the petitioners has any application on the facts of the present case. All the writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.