JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. 1. This petition is directed against the award dated 29.02.2016 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, in Industrial Dispute No.192/2011, General Secretary, Food Corporation of India, Shramik Sangh Vs. Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India. 2. Key facts, necessary for adjudication of the petition, are that the members of the respondent-Union raised a industrial dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner. The following reference was made by the Ministry of Labour :- “Whether the demand of food Corporation of India Shramik Sangh Uttaranchal is just and legal to declare that the workers Shri Rajbir Singh, S/o Shri Hodil Singh and 199 others were employed at the Food Corporation of India Depot, Jwalapur since 1996-97 continuously and were also engaged by the management of FCI Jwalapur under Direct Payment System during the period 10.07.2003 to 28.10.2004 and thereafter their discontinuance/termination from service by the management of FCI in violation of section 25(O) of the ID Act, 1947 is illegal and unjustified? If so, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to?” 3. The Union filed a claim petition. According to the averments made in the claim petition, Jwalapur Go-down came under the definition of factory, being an Industrial Establishment, as more than one lakh workers are engaged and in Jwalapur Depot, more than 200 workers were employed. Thus, without adopting the procedure prescribed under Section 25 (O) of I.D. Act, the closure was not permissible. The alleged contract system was sham, show and camouflage. The members of the respondent-Union have directly worked under the control of the Food Corporation of India. The wages for the period w.e.f. 10.07.2003 to 28.10.2004 have been withheld. In the show-cause notice, their conditions of service were changed to their detriment to the issue of work. The stoppage of work also amounted to illegal retrenchment and violative of Sections 25-N & M of Industrial Dispute Act. 4. The employer/management filed reply to the claim petition. According to the averments made in the reply, the claim was filed with mala fide intention. The services of the labourers were hired by the Corporation/FCI through the agency, on contract basis, as per the provision of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970. There is no question of termination of services of the labourers by the F.C.I., as their services were hired through an Agency on contract basis. The services of the labourers were hired by the Corporation/FCI through the agency, on contract basis, as per the provision of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970. There is no question of termination of services of the labourers by the F.C.I., as their services were hired through an Agency on contract basis. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court made the award on 29.02.2016. 5. The case of the petitioners is that the members of the respondents-Union were never employed by the Food Corporation of India directly. They were employed by some contractor. The earlier awards passed in the I.D. No. 10 of 2006 and I.D. No. 69 of 2008 have not been taken into consideration in the award dated 29.02.2016. The workmen have not completed 240 days in a block of 12 Calendar months. Ms. Shipra Shukla, Advocate could not be appointed as Commissioner. 6. Mr. M.C. Pant, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has supported the award dated 29.02.2016. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 8. Sri Rajbir Singh was examined as WWI. Sri Rajbir Singh, in his affidavit, has supported the averments made in the claim petition. The gist of his statement is that the workmen were directly employed by the Employer-FCI since 1996-97 and they were not paid the wages under the direct payment system for the period 10.07.2003 to 28.10.2004. Statement of WW1 Rajveer Singh has duly been corroborated by the statement of WW2 Saroj Singh. According to him, workmen were engaged in the work of loading and unloading at Jwalapur Depot. He has proved the Registration Certificate of the Union. He has proved various letters written by the officials of the FCI to the Senior Regional Manager as well as WWI Rajbir Singh regarding engagement of workmen. He has proved the list of 200 workmen. The workmen had moved an application for production of documents, the Tribunal ordered for the production of record. The record was not produced. The Presiding Officer was constrained to appoint Ms. Shipra Shukla, Advocate, as Commissioner, authorizing her, in writing, to enter the premises at FCI Godown, Jwalapur, near Ashoka Talkies, Jwalapur, Haridwar as well as the premises at 3/3 Ganesh Bazar near Ram Lila Ground, Srinagar, Garhwal, where Go-down and office are being run. 9. The record was not produced. The Presiding Officer was constrained to appoint Ms. Shipra Shukla, Advocate, as Commissioner, authorizing her, in writing, to enter the premises at FCI Godown, Jwalapur, near Ashoka Talkies, Jwalapur, Haridwar as well as the premises at 3/3 Ganesh Bazar near Ram Lila Ground, Srinagar, Garhwal, where Go-down and office are being run. 9. Shri Uday Singh Rawat, Manager (Law), FCI Srinagar has appeared as Management Witness No.1. In his affidavit, he has reiterated the stand taken in the reply filed with the claim petition. He has admitted, on oath, that the workmen have worked with the F.C.I. management, but they were neither appointed by FCI management nor they were on the pay roll of FCI. 10. The case of the management is that though the workmen were engaged by the contractor, but the name of the contractor has not been disclosed. Mr. Uday Singh Rawat as MW1 has also not named any specific contractor who was given work of handling of food grains at Jwalapur Depot. In case the work was assigned through contractor under the Contract Labour Act, the organization was required to be registered. The non registration of the organization attracts penal provisions. The supervisory control of the workmen was always with the Management. As per letters Ex. WW2/2 and DWW 2/4, the contractor was not held responsible for the engagement of the workmen. The food grains of the respective depots are handled by the workmen of the respondents/Union. Ms. Shipra Shukla, Advocate Commissioner, has traced the record stack in old gunny bags. In case, the contractor does not make the payment, it is for the principal employer to make the payments under Section 21 of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act 1970. However, the register and records are required to be preserved. Neither the management has taken care to produce any such document nor the name of the contractor was mentioned. It is not discernable why the management has tried to withhold the documents from the Labour Court. The management has also withheld the documents from the Local Commissioner. It has also come on record by way of documents Ex.W.W.3/2 to Ex. Neither the management has taken care to produce any such document nor the name of the contractor was mentioned. It is not discernable why the management has tried to withhold the documents from the Labour Court. The management has also withheld the documents from the Local Commissioner. It has also come on record by way of documents Ex.W.W.3/2 to Ex. W.W.3/357 that during different years, payment regarding handling charges and salary of the employees of Jwalapur Depot was sanctioned by the Management of the F.C.I. This letter is dated 16.12.2003, whereby F.C.I. has released amount for a period w.e.f. 01.07.2003 to 31.10.2003. In the second ledger also, it has been shown that the payment has been made to the workmen by the Management. No suggestion was put to the Local Commissioner about the authenticity of the bills. A list of the workmen, who were working at Jwalapur Depot, is W.W.3/9. 11. The members of the respondent/Union are the employees of the Food Corporation of India. There was a relationship of master and the servant between the parties. There is no cogent evidence to prove on record that handling of work of food grains was given during the period 10.07.2003 to 28.10.2004 to the third party. The workmen have worked for a period 10.07.2003 to 28.10.2004 but the employer has not paid their wages. No contractor was produced to prove that workmen have been paid their wages. The workmen have been terminated without following the mandatory provisions of Section 25 (O) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. There is a detailed procedure, which is required to be followed at the time of closure of an Industrial Undertaking. The employer has to comply with the due procedure viz. informing to the Government at least 90 days prior before the date, on which, the employer wants to close the undertaking or industry. A copy thereof is required to be supplied to the representatives of the workmen. Thereafter, the State Government in the interest of general public, after recording the reasons, refused the permission for closure of the Industrial establishment. Admittedly, this procedure has not been followed by the Management. The work at Jwalapur Depot was perennial at nature. Jwalapur Depot comes within the definition of establishment or industry. 12. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has also argued that the Ms. Shipra Shukla, Advocate could not be appointed as Commissioner. Admittedly, this procedure has not been followed by the Management. The work at Jwalapur Depot was perennial at nature. Jwalapur Depot comes within the definition of establishment or industry. 12. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has also argued that the Ms. Shipra Shukla, Advocate could not be appointed as Commissioner. However, the fact of the matter is that the management has not complied with the orders of the Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court to produce the documents. Thus, in these circumstances, the appointment of Advocate Commissioner was made under Rule 23 of the Rules and she was also examined as W.W. 3. No suggestion was put to her regarding the report submitted by her. She has, in fact, visited the premises on two different dates i.e. 27.12.2012 and 28.12.2012. She has duly proved the report Ex. WW 3/1. The workers were working on the direction of the Principal Employer i.e. FCI. The Jwalapur Depot was an industry. The Tribunal has rightly relied upon the law as propounded by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of ‘Steel Authority of India Ltd. & others v. National Union Waterfront Workers’ (2001) Volume 7 SCC, Page-1 and ‘International Airport Authority of India v. International A.I.R. Cargo Workers’ Union and Others’ (2009) 13 S.C.C. Page 374. 13. There is no merit in the contention of learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the establishment was closed due to the unrest of the workmen. No cogent evidence has been placed on record that there was any unrest at the place of work. 14. The workmen have worked for more than 240 days continuously before the closure of establishment and they have duly proved before the Labour Court that they were the employees of the Food Corporation of India. They have not been paid their wages w.e.f. 10.07.2003 to 28.10.2004. The closure of the establishment is in negation of the provisions of Section 25 (O) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The learned Labour Court has also referred to the Award dated 11.03.2010 rendered in I.D. No. 69 of 2008. The question involved in this award was different and the workmen were also different. Similarly, the facts of the Award dated 11.03.2010 are also distinct and different. 15. Accordingly, there is no merit in petition and the same is hereby dismissed with the cost of Rs.25,000/- (twenty five thousand only).