JUDGMENT : Sunita Agarwal, J. Heard Shri Santosh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Indira Jaising learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Sri Krishna Mishra learned counsel for the respondent no.4 and Ms.Harshita Rani learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 3. 2. The issues being raised in the present bunch of writ petitions are similar and hence they were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 3. All the connected writ petition are directed against the orders passed by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) Kanpur on various dates, whereunder the plea of the respondent union to provide benefits of Rule 25(2)(v)(a) & (b) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Central Rules, 1971 (in short 'the Rules, 1971') framed under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (in short 'the Act, 1970'), has been allowed. 4. It is noteworthy that in Writ Petition No.10413 of 2018 (Area Manager Food Corporation Of India v. Union Of India & 2 Ors.), the order dated 20.9.2017, on an application dated 11.5.2017 filed by the respondent-Union with respect to 100 workers allegedly working under the Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, Civil Lines, Jhansi (termed as principal employer) has been challenged. The said petition has wrongly been mentioned being pertaining to District Jalaun in the Cause title. 5. The Writ Petition No.23839 of 2018 (F.C.I Mazdoor Union Uttar Pradesh & Another v. Union Of India & 6 Ors.) has been filed by the respondent no.4 namely FCI Mazdoor Union and Md. Hashim, the General Secretary of the said Union, seeking direction for implementation of the order dated 7.7.2017 passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner with respect to 193 workers under the Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, Roza Depot, Shahjahanpur. 6. The petitioner herein is a statutory Corporation of the Government of India created by the Act of Parliament namely the Food Corporation Act, 1964. The basic work of the Food Corporation of India (in short 'the FCI') is to implement various Schemes of the Government of India for distribution of foodgrains to disadvantaged Sections of the Society through Public Distribution System at the highly subsidized rates and ensure compliance of the Food Security Act. 7. The respondent no.4 namely FCI Mazdoor Union, U.P. through its General Secretary namely Mohd. 7. The respondent no.4 namely FCI Mazdoor Union, U.P. through its General Secretary namely Mohd. Hasim filed applications on behalf of 193 persons with respect to FCI Roza depot, Shahjahanpur, seeking for providing of the same wages and other conditions of service as that of the directly employed workmen by the principal employer of the establishment under Rule 25 (2)(v)(a) & (b) of the Rules, 1971. 8. The assertions in the application dated 2.12.2016 filed on behalf of respondent no.4 was that the 193 contract workers (members of the Union) were being engaged for carrying out the work of loading and unloading at railheads as handling and transport workers but later on similar kind of work was not being provided to the members of the union, though the Government of India had issued notification dated 6.7.2016 under Section 31 of the Act, 1970, denotifying 11 FCI Depots lifting the prohibition issued under Section 10 of the Act, 1970. It was contended that after issuance of the exemption notification, various contract workers were engaged for the work of loading and unloading at the railheads as handling and transport workers but the members of the applicant who were earlier doing similar work, were not engaged by the Corporation, the principal employer. At the same time, it was also stated therein that the Area Manager Food Storage depot Roza, Shahjahanpur and other depots were discriminating between the contract workers and the workers working under the direct payment system as against Rule 25(2)(b) of the Rules, 1971. It was, therefore, prayed that the principal employer/contractor be directed to take similar work from the members of the applicant union and provide them the same facilities as is being availed by the workers on direct payment system. 9. Identical applications were moved by the respondent no.4 Union with respect to other food storage depots at Etah, Banda, Mahoba and Jhansi Districts. 10. The petitioner corporation, on the other hand, disputed their claims on the grounds that the applications purported to be filed by the union were in the nature of seeking employment in FCI. And as such were not maintainable under Rule 25(2)(v)(a)(b) of the Rules 1971 framed under the Act, 1970. As far as Roza depot is concerned, it was stated that the depot was not functional for the last five years. And as such were not maintainable under Rule 25(2)(v)(a)(b) of the Rules 1971 framed under the Act, 1970. As far as Roza depot is concerned, it was stated that the depot was not functional for the last five years. Similar stand was taken with regard to other depots such as Etah, Banda, Mahoba and Jhansi as well. It was stated that neither the departmental handling labourers were working nor contract workers were engaged therein. The monthly stock account clearly reflected that input-output throughout the last five years of Roza depot was zero. 11. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner corporation is that the Gazette notification dated 6.7.2016 though permits FCI to engage contract workers on the condition that if they are so engaged, they shall get same wages as that of department labourers, however, it would apply only if such an engagement has been made in the establishment. There was not even an iota of evidence on record which would substantiate that a single departmental labour was working at Roza depot in Shahjahanpur or that the contract workers had been engaged by the Corporation after promulgation of the exemption notification dated 6.7.2016 with respect to other depots in question. The findings recorded by the Deputy Labour Commissioner (Central) Kanpur in the orders impugned are challenged on the aforesaid grounds. 12. It is further submitted that even assuming without admitting that these persons were engaged through contractors, they then could claim their wages from the contractors and there was no occasion for the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner to fasten the liability upon the Corporation, without any material on record regarding subsistence of a valid contract. The contractors whose affidavits have been relied in the orders impugned were not before the Deputy Labour Commissioner to prove the fact of existence of valid contracts or the engagement of these workers on contract basis. The documents such as EPF slips and the purported affidavits filed on behalf of the contractors were forged and fabricated documents. The findings recorded by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Shahjahanpur in referring to the EPF slips, licence issued to the contractors for engagement of department labours by the Corporation as well as engagement of handling labourers through contractors are thus wholly perverse. 13. Ms. The findings recorded by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Shahjahanpur in referring to the EPF slips, licence issued to the contractors for engagement of department labours by the Corporation as well as engagement of handling labourers through contractors are thus wholly perverse. 13. Ms. Indra Jaisingh learned Senior Advocate for the respondent no.4, however, vehemently argued that all the depots in question owned by the FCI are functioning. In some districts, the Corporation owned premises to run its depots whereas at other places they are using godowns taken on rent or hired by it. In every depot, the FCI was taking work through contractual labourers prior to the publication of the prohibition notification dated 23.4.2010 under Section 10 of the Act, 1970. By the said notification dated 23.4.2010, the Government of India had earlier prohibited contract system in 11 depots in the State of U.P. The proceedings for verification of the contractual employees was, thereafter, initiated and also to identify those from whom work was being taken by the F.C.I under the Scheme of "No work No pay" in accordance with the Circular dated 11.9.1991. During the pendency of the process of verification, a notification dated 6.7.2016 was issued by the Government of India in the light of the Judgment of the Bombay High Court in PIL No.84 of 2014. The exemption notification dated 6.7.2016 issued under Section 31 of the Act, 1970 clearly states that the various depots of the Corporation was permitted to engage contract labourers subject to the compliance of Rule 25(2)(v)(a) of the Rules, 1971. 14. It was, thus, provided that the contract labourers who were engaged in the F.C.I depots for the work of loading and unloading of the foodgrains, would be eligible for the wages at the same rates which was being given to the regular departmental employees. 15. The submission of learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent no.4 is that the respondent-union is a registered union of workers who are working in different depots of F.C.I and in order to get the dues of the workers under the Act, 1970, it has moved applications under Rule 25(2)(v)(a) & (b) of the Rules, 1971. The submission of the petitioner Corporation that the depots in question were not operational or that no contract workers had been engaged therein, is incorrect. The submission of the petitioner Corporation that the depots in question were not operational or that no contract workers had been engaged therein, is incorrect. The Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Kanpur had recorded a categorical finding after perusal of the records before it such as Gate pass and payment slips etc. that the claimants/applicants were working in various food storage depots, owned or hired by FCI. Under the Act, 1970 read with the Rules, 1971, the power lies with the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Kanpur to decide the claims filed under Rule 25(2)(v) of the Rules, 1971 on the basis of records before it. The challenge made by the petitioner regarding the jurisdiction of the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner is, therefore, without any basis. 16. It is vehemently submitted by the learned Senior Advocate that in fact the work of handling of the foodgrains i.e. loading and unloading is being taken from the members of the respondent no.4-Union without engaging them through registered contractor. The depots are functional and the members of the respondent-union are being subjected to harassment by the Area Managers of the concerned depots, inasmuch as, after prohibition under Section 10 of the Act, 1970 has been lifted, though the work is being taken from the labourers hired on contract basis directly by the principal employer i.e. the Area Manager of the concerned depot but contractor has not been registered in order to deprive these persons of the benefits of the Act, 1970. It is contended that the fact that the names of the depots in question have been mentioned in the notification dated 6.7.2016, exempting them under the provisions of Section 31 of the Act, 1970, is a proof of the fact that these depots were functional as on 6.7.2016 i.e. on the date of issuance of the notification. 17. It is, thus, contended that the act of the petitioner corporation in taking work from the contract labourers without following the provisions of the Act, 1970, is in fact a subterfuge to deny employment and due payments with dishonest intention, to get away from the rigours of the Act, 1970. The documents filed by the respondent-union before the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner supported by the affidavits of the contractors were sufficient proof of the said fact. The documents filed by the respondent-union before the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner supported by the affidavits of the contractors were sufficient proof of the said fact. The enquiry into the dispute arising out of the Act, 1970, made by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner, was well within the scope of its jurisdiction under Rule 25 (2)(v) of the Rules, 1971. The findings recorded by him being based on the evidence on record are not amenable to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution. The work of handling of foodgrains is of perennial nature and cannot by any stretch of imagination be ascribed to be of seasonal or temporary nature. The stand that no contractor has been engaged even after issuance of the exemption notification dated 6.7.2016 i.e. despite getting permission to engage workers on contract basis, to carry out the work of loading and unloading of the foodgrains, is a conscious effort to deny benefits of the Act, 1970. It is practically not possible for the Corporation to carry out the work of the depots without engaging the contract labourers and for this reason only, the prohibition under Section 10 of the Act, 1970 was lifted by the Government of India. 18. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 19. It is clear from the allegations and counter allegations that the issue raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner (Central) Kanpur required him to embark an enquiry as to whether these persons approximately 100 and odd, were ever engaged by the concerned depots of the Corporation to do work of loading, unloading and handling of foodgrains with or without a contractor, and whether for that reason they should be treated as contract labourers or contract employees of the Corporation, so as to be held entitled for the benefits of the Rule 25(2)(v) of the Rules, 1971. The question, thus, is whether within the scope of enquiry under the Act 1970, the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner had jurisdiction to examine the issue of genuineness of the claim of the members of the applicant union. 20. To answer the said question, it would be pertinent to note down certain admitted facts borne out from the record. From a perusal of the application dated 2.12.2016 moved by the FCI Mazdoor Union represented through Md. 20. To answer the said question, it would be pertinent to note down certain admitted facts borne out from the record. From a perusal of the application dated 2.12.2016 moved by the FCI Mazdoor Union represented through Md. Hashim its General Secretary with respect to Roza Depot, Shahjahanpur as also similar applications moved with respect to other depots, it appears that the dispute between the petitioner Corporation and respondent union arose with the issuance of the prohibition notification dated 23.4.2010, whereby the Government of India had prohibited the contract labour system at various food storage depots in the State of U.P. including the depots in question. Upon such notification, the Corporation incorporated "No work No pay" scheme providing guidelines to identify labourers working in different depots of the Corporation. Pursuant thereto, a Committee was constituted to identify the labourers to be included in the said Scheme. With respect of Roza depot, District Shahjahanpur, the said Committee had identified 222 labourers. Similar exercise was done with regard to other depots as well. The aggrieved workers who were left, filed several writ petitions before this Court wherein they were granted liberty to file representations before the Competent Authority. These labourers approached the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) Kanpur by filing representations contending that they were genuine contract labourers but they had not been given benefit of the aforesaid scheme. During pending of the said representations, the respondent-Union had approached this Court in various writ petitions seeking expeditious disposal of their representations. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Kanpur had examined the representations by framing two issues:- "(a). Whether the set of workers have worked in the notified depots of Food Corporation of India and are entitled to get the benefit of Notification issued under Section 10(1) of CL (R & A) Act, 1970; (b). Whether claim of the workers are genuine or not." 21. After enquiry, these workers were held to be genuine workers and were, thus, held entitled for the benefit of induction under "No work No pay system" as per the policy introduced by the respondent-management. 22. The order dated 29.5.2015 passed by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner with regard to FCI Roza depot, Shahjahanpur was challenged in Writ Petition No.50747 of 2015 by the Corporation. 22. The order dated 29.5.2015 passed by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner with regard to FCI Roza depot, Shahjahanpur was challenged in Writ Petition No.50747 of 2015 by the Corporation. The said writ petition was allowed vide judgement and order dated 19.4.2016 setting aside the said order passed by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Kanpur, with the observation that the question as to the genuineness of the workers appointed by the contractor i.e. identification of all such workers, who have been left out by the Corporation upon recommendation of the Committee, is a dispute within the meaning of Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act, 1947). It was noticed by this Court that the contractors were not party to the lis nor were represented before the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Kanpur, through whom the workers laid their claim of being engaged on contract basis. It was, thus, held that the question of identification of workers and their genuineness was of paramount importance, inasmuch as, inclusion of labourers within the scheme framed by the Corporation, may give rise to their claim in future to be considered for regularisation or appointment upon vacancies arising in the establishment. 23. It was, thus, held that the exercise taken by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner at best can be said to be the Conciliation proceedings under Section 11 of the Act, 1947 to settle the dispute between the parties, amicably. In the event of failure, only course before the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner was to refer the matter for adjudication. It was, therefore, kept open for the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Kanpur to place the report of the Central Government for referring the dispute for adjudication under the Act, 1947. 24. The dispute raised in the present petition arose as a result of the subsequent exemption notification dated 6.7.2016 issued under Section 31 of the Act, 1970, whereby various depots of the FCI had been permitted to engage the contract labourers for its various activities subject to the conditions of compliance of Rule 25(2)(v)(a) of the Rules, 1971. 25. With the publication of the said notification, the respondent no.4 union had again approached the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Kanpur with the applications to grant benefit of the Rule 25(2) of the Rules, 1971 to its members. 25. With the publication of the said notification, the respondent no.4 union had again approached the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Kanpur with the applications to grant benefit of the Rule 25(2) of the Rules, 1971 to its members. The assertion therein is that the work of loading and unloading at the railheads as handling and transport workers though was being taken from the direct workers but the members of the applicant union were not being provided the similar kind of work by the principal employer. It was further stated that the contract workers were being engaged in the depots directly without appointment of a registered contractor i.e. in non-compliance of the provisions of the Act, 1970, so as to deprive these workers of the benefits of the said Act and the Rules framed thereunder. 26. Thus, in the crux, the controversy revolved around the dispute regarding the identification of workers and genuineness of the contract workers who were allegedly engaged through the contractors hired by the Corporation prior to the publication of the prohibition notification dated 23.4.2010. 27. The question, therefore, would be as to whether the members of the respondent-union can be said to be contract labourers eligible for the benefits of the Contract Labour Regulation Act, 1970 read with the Rules, 1971 or that they have been engaged directly by the principal employer i.e. direct employees of the Corporation entitled for the benefits of all other labour laws. Further, whether the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner was competent to examine the said question within the scope of enquiry under Rule 25 of the Rules, 1971. 28. To answer this question, the scheme of the entire Act, 1970 and the Rules, 1971 framed thereunder, has to be examined. 29. The long title of the Act, 1970 describes it as "An act to regulate the employment of contract labour in certain establishments and to provide for its abolition in certain circumstances and for matters connected therewith". According to the statement of objects and reasons, the proposed bill aimed at abolition of contract labour in respect of such categories as may be notified by the appropriate Government and at regulating service conditions of contract labour where abolition is not possible. Thus, it indicates that the Act, 1970 does not provide for the total abolition of contract labour but for its abolition in certain circumstances and for regulation in certain establishments. 30. Thus, it indicates that the Act, 1970 does not provide for the total abolition of contract labour but for its abolition in certain circumstances and for regulation in certain establishments. 30. Section 1(4) provides for the establishment to which it applies. Section 2(a) defines establishments which include the Government departments as also private employers. Section 2(g) provides the meaning of the principal employer. Sections 3 and 4 provides for Central and State Advisory Board to advice the Central Government and the State Government, as the case may be, on the matters arising out of the administration of the Act, 1970 referred to it and to carry out other functions assigned to it under the Act, 1970. Section 7 provides for registration of the establishment. Section 8 provides for revocation of registration and Section 9 provides the effect for non-registration of the establishment. Section 10 provides for and enables the prohibition of employment of contract labour in any process, operations or other work in any establishment. Section 12 provides for licensing of contractors. Sections 13, 14 and 15 provides for grant of licence, revocation, suspension and amendment of licences and appeal against the orders passed under Sections 7, 8, 12 or 14. Section 21 makes the contractor responsible for payment of wages to each worker employed by him as contract labourer and further prohibits that the principal employer shall nominate the representative duly authorised by him who shall supervise the disbursement of wages by the contractor by being present at such time. Sections 22 to 27 provides for penalties and procedure for the offenses under the Act, 1970. Section 28 provides for appointment of inspecting staff and Section 29 provides for maintenance of register and records giving details including the particulars of contract labour employed, the nature of work performed by such workers and the rates of wages paid to him and such other particulars as prescribed to be maintained by the principal employer and every contractor. 31. Section 31, however, gives power to the appropriate Government to exempt by the notification in the Official Gazette subject to such conditions and restrictions, any establishment or class of establishments or any class of contractors, as may be specified in the notification, from all or any of the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder. 31. Section 31, however, gives power to the appropriate Government to exempt by the notification in the Official Gazette subject to such conditions and restrictions, any establishment or class of establishments or any class of contractors, as may be specified in the notification, from all or any of the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder. Section 35 invests the appropriate Government with the powers to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act. 32. The rules framed under the said provision by the Central Government are called as the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Central Rules, 1971. Chapter III of the Rules refers to registration and licensing of establishment and licensing of contractor. Rule 25 prescribes the forms and terms and conditions of licence. Rule 25(2)(i) to (iv) provides the condition of every licence and that the rates of wages of a contract worker shall not be less than the rates prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for such employment where it is applicable, and where the rates have been fixed by agreement, settlement or award not less than the rates so fixed. 33. Rule 25(2)(v)(a) and (b) relevant for the purposes of the present controversy are quoted hereunder:- "(v) (a) in cases where the workman employed by the contractor perform the same or similar kind of work as the workmen directly employed by the principal employer of the establishment, the wage rates, holidays, hours of work and other conditions of service of the workmen of the contractor shall be the same as applicable to the workmen directly employed by the principal employer of the establishment on the same or similar kind of work: Provided that in the case of any disagreement with regard to the type of work the same shall be decided by [the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central)] [****] (b) in other cases the wage rates, holidays, hours of work and conditions of service of the workmen of the contractor shall be such as may be specified in this behalf by 1[the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central)]; Explanation.-While determining the wage rates, holidays, hours of work and other conditions of service under (b) above, the [Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central)] shall have due regard to the wage rates, holidays, hours of work and other conditions of service obtaining in similar employments; 34. Under explanation attached to Section 25, the Deputy Chief Labour commissioner (Central) has been empowered to make an enquiry to determine the wage rates, holidays, hours of work and other conditions of service of the workmen of the contractor. However, he has no power to make an enquiry regarding the genuineness of the workers, allegedly engaged by the contractor and further that whether the contract workers were engaged directly by the principal employer, without there being a licensed contractor, in order to deny benefits to such persons of the Rule 25(2) of the Rules, 1971 and to get away from the rigours of the Act, 1970. 35. This opinion is substantiated by the fact that the prohibition notification issued under Section 10(1) of the Act, 1970 does not provide for automatic absorption of the contract labours as has been held by the Apex Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors. v. National Union Waterfront Workers & Ors. reported in (2001) 7 SCC 1 . At the best, if the contract is found to be genuine and the prohibition notification under Section 10(1) of the Act, 1970 has been issued in respect of an establishment, the workers engaged through contractor, can seek preference if the principal employer intends to employ regular workmen, if they are otherwise found suitable by seeking relaxation of the conditions as to minimum age, academic qualification or other technical qualifications etc., if necessary. Similarly, the question as to the genuineness of the contract or whether it is mere ruse/camouflage to evade compliance with various beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workers of the benefits thereunder, is a question which is to be examined by the Industrial Adjudicator. The expression "Industrial Adjudicator" as used therein has been explained as an Authority which can make the necessary enquiry into the disputed questions of facts and whose determination in such cases will be amenable to judicial review. 36. Further, the doctrine of "lifting of veil" has been recognized in Hussainbhai Calicut v. The Alath Factory Thezhilali Union Kozhikode & Ors. reported in (1978) 4 SCC 257 and was followed in Secretary H.S.E.B. v. Suresh & Ors. reported in (1999) 3 SCC 601 . 36. Further, the doctrine of "lifting of veil" has been recognized in Hussainbhai Calicut v. The Alath Factory Thezhilali Union Kozhikode & Ors. reported in (1978) 4 SCC 257 and was followed in Secretary H.S.E.B. v. Suresh & Ors. reported in (1999) 3 SCC 601 . The result is that if after such enquiry, the contract is found to be not genuine, the mere camouflage, the 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 establishment concerned, subject to the conditions as may be specified by it for the purpose. 37. However, if the contract is found to be genuine, the contractor and the principal employer both will have to ensure the compliance of the Act, 1970 and the working conditions of the contract labour would be regulated under the Act, 1970. Consequently, in both the eventuality, either in case of issuance of prohibition notification or exemption granted under Section 31 of the Act, 1970 subject to the conditions provided thereunder, the enquiry into the genuineness of the contract and the factum of engagement of the contract workers would require determination of disputed questions of facts which can only be done by the Industrial Adjudicator i.e. the Industrial Tribunal/Court on a reference of "industrial dispute" within the meaning of Section 2 (k) of the Act, 1947. 38. The Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Kanpur was not empowered to make such enquiry so as to hold the workers entitled for the benefit of Rule 25(2) (v) of the Rules, 1971, in view of the dispute raised by the Corporation regarding genuineness of these workers and the admitted fact that there was no subsisting licenced contractors. Moreso, when the contractors under whom, the workers claimed their engagement, were not party to the lis nor were represented before the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner. In the said circumstances, the exercise undertaken by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) Kanpur at best can be said to be Conciliation proceedings under Section 11 of the Act, 1947. In the event of failure, only course open before him was to refer the matter for adjudication. 39. In the said circumstances, the exercise undertaken by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) Kanpur at best can be said to be Conciliation proceedings under Section 11 of the Act, 1947. In the event of failure, only course open before him was to refer the matter for adjudication. 39. For the above discussion, the orders impugned passed by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) Kanpur are modified to the extent that the said decisions shall be treated as reports as to the existence of the industrial disputes, to be placed before the Central Government for referring the same for adjudication under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the event of a reference, the Industrial Tribunal concerned would be required to examine all the issues relating to the genuineness of contract and of the workers whose claims have been ventilated by the respondent Union for being engaged directly. In other words, Industrial Adjudicators would be required to make an enquiry so as to "lift the veil" to find out whether the members of the respondents-union have been engaged by the Corporation or they are fictitious persons as claimed by it, in the light of the pleadings and evidence placed before it. 40. Subject to the above observations and directions, the present bunch of writ petitions are being disposed of.