JUDGMENT S.G. Shah, J. 1. These special applications are admitted by order dated 17th April, 2013. Before that while issuing notice by order dated 25th February, 2015 ad-interim relief was granted so far continuity of service and back wages are concerned, on condition that the reinstatement will be affected before the returnable date. Whereas on 17th April, 2013 when matter was admitted, it is observed that after the interim protection granted by this Court, employment was offered to respondent workman, but he has chosen not to report. Thereby the only issue which remains to be decided in this application is regarding the legality and validity of the impugned judgment and order dated 30th July, 2012 by Labour Court of Vadodara in Reference (LCV) No. 294 of 2006. By such impugned judgment and order, Labour Court has allowed the reference forwarded to it on 14th July, 2006 by the Labour Commissioner, Vadodara to the effect that whether respondent No. 1 should be reinstated in services with back wages or not. The Labour Court, after hearing all the parties and after considering the rival submissions and available evidence on record, concluded that the dismissal of the respondent is illegal and, therefore, directed his reinstatement with 20% back wages. 2. Such reference was adjudicated against the company where employee was working, but on record the company has shown that he was a contract labourer through the contractor, who is also party before the Labour Court. 3. Therefore, Special Civil Application No. 1992 of 2013 is preferred by the company, whereas Special Civil Application No. 2077 of 2013 is preferred by the contractor, challenging the same impugned judgment and therefore, both the petitions are heard together and decided by this common judgment. 4. Since main petition has been admitted with interim relief against payment of back wages, the respondent No. 1 employee has filed Civil Application No. 13531 of 2014 with a prayer to vacate the interim relief confirmed by order dated 17th April, 2013 and thereby to confirm the award dated 30th July, 2012 by the Labour Court, Vadodara in reference (LCV) No. 294 of 2006. Similar relief is also prayed by filing separate Civil Application 13532 of 2014 in Special Civil Application No. 1992 of 2013. 5. Similar relief is also prayed by filing separate Civil Application 13532 of 2014 in Special Civil Application No. 1992 of 2013. 5. At the time of consideration of both such applications, it has been agreed between the parties to decide the main petition instead of deciding such Civil Applications because for consideration of such civil applications also similar set of arguments are to be submitted and same facts and record is to be examined. 6. If we perused the impugned judgment and order, it becomes clear and obvious that the Labour Court has considered all the relevant evidence produced before it and when it is found that employee was serving for four years with the employer and when allocation and supervision of work of the employee was done by the officers of the main employer company and when employer company is deciding the salary and increase in such salary and when employer and labour contractor are managing their account, only with a view to restrict to extended benefit under the labour laws to their employees, the Labour Court has considered it as an unfair labour contract. It is held that company is actually real employer of the employee. It is further evident from the record that employer have obtained the resignation letter from the employee by threat and coercion, but for such illegality, employee has initiated such proceedings and thereby Labour Court has considered that employer has in fact dismissed and retrenched the employee. Thereby, employee has claimed for reinstatement with back wages and relying upon the available evidence on record when it is proved that employer has illegally retrenched the employee, the Labour Court has directed reinstatement. 7. While confirming reinstatement, the Labour Court has also considered the issue regarding right of back-wages wherein it is observed that pending reference, employee had got another job with Forbig Agricate (India) Pvt. Ltd. However it is a case of the employee that he worked only for 15 days in the year 2011 and, thereafter, he left that job and, thereby, he also admitted that he is getting wages of Rs. 2500/- to 3000/- per month by doing work. Therefore, Labour Court has considered that since there are so many industrial units in nearby area of Vadodara, it is difficult to believe that employee has waited for all six years without doing any work and thereby only 20% back-wages has been awarded. 2500/- to 3000/- per month by doing work. Therefore, Labour Court has considered that since there are so many industrial units in nearby area of Vadodara, it is difficult to believe that employee has waited for all six years without doing any work and thereby only 20% back-wages has been awarded. 8. As against that, the employer has contended that the employee was not permanent workman but was a casual workman only and he was called upon as and when work is available and, therefore, he is not entitled to reinstatement with back wages. However at Annexure B, several pay slips are produced by the employer to show that employee is working through labour contractor, but such pay slips are for the period between March 2005 to April 2006, and for all the entire year, it is clear that the employee has worked for between 19 to 27 days in each month and the contractor has also issued an identity card. So far as reinstatement is concerned, it is already observed in order dated 17th April, 2013 that workman is not interested in joining the services. Now this fact has been admitted by the workman in Civil Application wherein in Para 6, he has categorically admitted that he has accepted the job elsewhere and that the question of reinstatement does not remain any more, but because of the stay, he is not able to get his legal dues and, therefore, the only issue needs to be decided is the eligibility of the employee to receive 20% back wages. 9. I have perused the entire record and considered rival submissions. When the employee has worked for couple of years, and for almost full months continuously for last year before retrenchment, it becomes clear that the retrenchment is without following due process of law which is certainly unwarranted and illegal. So far as back-wages are concerned, when only 20% back-wages are awarded and that when there is no other evidence by the employer that the employee was gainfully engaged in other establishment, it would not be appropriate to interfere with the award of 20% back-wages only. 10. Though all cited judgments are not of much relevant at this stage considering the factual details on hand. Therefore when learned Advocate for the employee has vehemently argued relying upon such decisions, it will be necessary to deal with it. The learned Advocate Ms. 10. Though all cited judgments are not of much relevant at this stage considering the factual details on hand. Therefore when learned Advocate for the employee has vehemently argued relying upon such decisions, it will be necessary to deal with it. The learned Advocate Ms. Vandana Bhatt for the employee relies on the following citation: (1) Gujarat Electricity Board vs. Hind Mazdoor Sabha and Others, (1995) 5 SCC 27 wherein it is held that when workman were broadly under the control of the management then it is conclusive proof that he is workman of the company and not the contractor. (2) Steel Authority of India Ltd. vs. National Union Waterfront Workers, (2001) 7 SCC 1 wherein statement of objective & reasons of the C.L.R.A. Act has been reproduced from which it is contended that............ (3) K.D. Sharma vs. Steel Authority of India Limited and Others, (2008) 12 SCC 481 contending that such petitions are required to be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim when it is abuse of process of law because of non-disclosure of material facts suffix to say that non-disclosure of material fact is an issue which require to deal with individuals factual details and in absence of specific disclosure that which fact has not been disclosed, only because of this judgment all the petitions cannot be disposed of without verifying the facts and pleadings. It is also settled law that the High Court has got supervisory jurisdiction over the judicial and quasi-judicial authorities within the state and therefore when there is a submission regarding illegality or irregularity it would be necessary to examine all the issues rather than to dispose the petition summarily and technically. (4) Ritesh Tiwari vs. State of U.P. & Others, (2010) 10 SCALE 38 wherein it is held that such petition can be entertained only after being fully satisfied about the factual statements and not in a casual and cavalier manner. With due respect same discussion in the case of K.D. Sharma (Supra) would be applicable in not dismissing the petition summarily without considering the entire record properly. (5) Bhilwara Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari S. Ltd. vs. Vinod Kumar Sharma, AIR 2011 SC 3546 wherein it is held that Labour Court's finding of facts should not be interfered in a petition under Article 226 when Labour Court has concluded that employee of the company and not the contractor. (5) Bhilwara Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari S. Ltd. vs. Vinod Kumar Sharma, AIR 2011 SC 3546 wherein it is held that Labour Court's finding of facts should not be interfered in a petition under Article 226 when Labour Court has concluded that employee of the company and not the contractor. It is certain that under Article 226 or 227 the duty of the Court is to first verify the irregularity and illegality in the impugned judgment and re-appreciation of evidence may be permitted only if there is any irregularity or illegality. 11. As against that the learned Advocates for the employer and contractor are relying upon the decision between: (1) B.S.N.L. vs. Attar Singh and Others, 2013 (2) LLJ 644 wherein Delhi High Court has held that the Industrial Tribunal is not justified in deciding the issue of validity of contract between the company and the contractor and in such cases Court should not grant reinstatement. It is further contended that such issue cannot be decided in absence of terms of reference and that principal company is not liable and only contractor is liable when employee was contract labourer. However the factual details are altogether different and therefore such judgment would not be helpful to the employer. (2) The case of R.M. Variava vs. Assistant Executive Engineer, (2006) 1 SCC 106 makes it clear that interference in finding of facts is permissible only if they are perverse. (3) General Manager (OSD), Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills, Rajnandgaon vs. Bharat Lal and Another, (2011) 1 SCC 635 confirms that when principal employer pay salary instead of contractor and when principal employer controls and supervise the work of employee is to be examined for considering the nature of employment." 12. It is evident from record that identity card is already issued in favour of the employee. Therefore, considering the overall facts, I am of the view that there is specific evidence regarding the continuous working by the employee with the main employer-company when they retrenched him without following due process of law, and when Labour Court has reinstated him and therefore, when company has offered the job, there is no reason to deny back wages, also more particularly when it is only 20%. 13. At this stage, it could not be ignored that pending the petition an attempt was made to resolve the dispute amicably between the parties. 13. At this stage, it could not be ignored that pending the petition an attempt was made to resolve the dispute amicably between the parties. When the limited issue of 20% back wages only was remained in dispute during such process, employer and the contractor had come forward with a calculation of payable wages from May 2006 till September 2011 when employee has admitted that he had been engaged in some other work and disclosed that 20% of total salary for such period shall be only Rs. 42050/-, wherein for every month, maximum period is considered as on duty as against that the employee had come forward with an amount of Rs. 512000/-, wherein an amount of Rs. 133000/- is considered as 20% back wages from May 2006 till July 2012 considering Rs. 300/- as minimum wages per day. The employee has also added full wages from July 2012 till April 2015 i.e. for 27 months and also added retrenchment compensation plus gratuity plus expenditure and contended that they will withdraw the recovery application, which is pending before the Labour Court except the claim for provident fund. 14. In view of the above facts, circumstances and discussion when it is clear that principal employer was taking work and keeping record and making payment to the employee, it is their responsible to satisfy the direction by the Labour Court vide impugned judgment so far as 20% back wage is concerned. 15. For the aforesaid reason I do not see any ground to interfere in such decision for the simple reason that none of the employer or contractor has been able to prove that employee was engaged in some earning activities except his own admission for limited period and when payable amount of 20% back wages is, according to the employee, only Rs. 1,33,000/-. However so far as calculations and entitlement of particular amount is concerned, in absence of appropriate evidence and discussion in the impugned judgment, I left that issue. It will be open for the appropriate authority to decide it in appropriate recovery proceedings. 16. In view of the facts and circumstances, I do not find any substance in both the petitions and therefore both the petitions deserve to be dismissed. It will be open for the appropriate authority to decide it in appropriate recovery proceedings. 16. In view of the facts and circumstances, I do not find any substance in both the petitions and therefore both the petitions deserve to be dismissed. So far as inter se liability of principal employer and contractor is concerned, unless principal employer is able to prove during recovery proceeding that pursuant to their contract, contractor has to pay such amount, the principal employer is equally liable to satisfy the award. In that case, principal employer may recover the amount which it has to pay to the employee if he so entitled under the inter se contract. Rule is discharged. 17. In view of the above order, Civil Applications do not survive and stand disposed of accordingly. Disposed off.