JUDGMENT Surya Kant, C.J. - This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 1930 and 1933 of 2018, as the point in issue, which arises for consideration in both the cases, is common in nature. 2. The facts are being extracted from CWP No. 1930 of 2018. The case of the petitioner is that she was engaged in the year 2004 as an AttendantcumSafai Karamchari by the first respondent (Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited) through the Contractor and she has been serving as such for the last more than 15 years, though her services were changed under one Contractor to another, at the instance of the principal employer, namely, the first respondent. It is also alleged that since the petitioner was not paid her wages for the months of July and August, 2016, she filed an application under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, but the same was rejected by the Labour Court vide Order dated 17th January, 2017. The said Order came to be challenged by the petitioner before this Court in CMPMO No. 32 of 2017, in which, learned Single Judge directed the respondents on 27th January, 2017 to pay due amount as admissible to the petitioner. Thereafter, on 8th December, 2017, this Court directed the first respondent to examine the case of the petitioner for adjustment in Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited. The petitioner was thereafter asked to give an option on 21st February, 2018 and in response thereto, the petitioner gave her consent to be adjusted at CFMD Corporate Office, Shimla. The above mentioned petition was eventually disposed of by this Court on 11th May, 2018, directing Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited to consider the representation of the petitioner for adjustment against any ClassIV post. 3. In purported compliance of those directions, the Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited has passed the impugned Order dated 30th July, 2018, vide which, claim of the petitioner for adjustment in the Corporation has been rejected and as regards to the payment of regular salary, she has been advised to mark her attendance with M/s Peasfill regularly and perform her duties as per instructions. 4. The above stated Order is now under challenge in the second round of litigation. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length and gone through the record. 6. 4. The above stated Order is now under challenge in the second round of litigation. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length and gone through the record. 6. Though it is petitioner''s own case that she has been engaged as AttendantcumSafai Karamchari for the last 15 years through a Work Contractor, nonetheless, the petitioner can always lead evidence and prove before an appropriate Forum, which can lift the veil and find out her actual status, namely, the relationship of master and servant with Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited. Such like questions of fact, the fate whereof shall depend upon the evidence to be led by the parties, cannot be effectively adjudicated in these extraordinary summary proceedings. 7. Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited has taken a stand that there are no sanctioned posts and the work has always been outsourced through one or the other Contractor through the bidding system. Presently the manpower services are provided by M/s Peasfilla Work Contractor. It is also their stand that as token of goodwill gesture and sympathetic consideration, the petitioner was advised to mark her biometric attendance and attend her duties regularly, so that her wages could be paid through the Contractor M/s Peasfill. 8. Learned counsel for the respondentSatluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited submits that as the petitioner was not producing necessary documents before the M/s Peasfill, the Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited has directly paid the wages to her after deducting the same from those paid to the Contractor as per the agreement. 9. The representative of M/s Peasfillthe work Contractor is also present. He fairly submits that if the petitioner produces a photocopy of Aadhar Card and give details of her Bank Account etc., they will have no issue in paying her wages, subject to her attending the work. The offer made by him appears to be fair and just. 10. We have persuaded learned counsel to convince the petitioner that she should immediately submit a photocopy of Aadhar Card to M/s Peasfill and also furnish the details of Bank Account, so that her salary can be directly deposited. We have also impressed upon the learned counsel that hitherto, the petitioner shall mark her biometric attendance. 10. We have persuaded learned counsel to convince the petitioner that she should immediately submit a photocopy of Aadhar Card to M/s Peasfill and also furnish the details of Bank Account, so that her salary can be directly deposited. We have also impressed upon the learned counsel that hitherto, the petitioner shall mark her biometric attendance. This will be without prejudice to the petitioner''s right to raise a claim before an appropriate Forum to establish, in accordance with law, direct relationship of master and servant between her and Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited. For that purpose, the petitioner may raise a Demand Notice before the ''Appropriate Government'', who in turn, is directed to refer the dispute to the Labour CourtcumIndustrial Tribunal for adjudication within a period of two months from the date of receipt of such Demand Notice. These directions are, however, without prejudice to the rights of the Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited to prove, in accordance with law, that there exists no relationship of employer and employee between it and the petitioner or that the petitioner was engaged through an Outsourcing Agency only. 11. Subject to the petitioner furnishing requisite documents to M/s Peasfill and mark her biometric attendance, it is directed that the petitioner shall be paid her salary regularly till she continues to perform her duties. Even if the Work Contractor changes, let the petitioner''s services be availed through the new Contractor till the dispute is resolved by the competent Authority, namely, Labour CourtcumIndustrial Tribunal. If there is any period for which the petitioner has not been paid salary, let her first make a representation to the Work Contractor, with a copy to the Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited and, if on verification, it is found that she had performed duties during the said period, but has not been paid salary/wages for want of documents, the same be released to her. However, still if there persists a dispute between the parties, the petitioner shall be at liberty to agitate this aspect also before the appropriate Forum. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petitions stand disposed of, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any.