JUDGMENT A.K. Menon, J. - The challenge in this petition is to the award passed in Reference (IT) No.15 of 2004 dated 11th November, 2014. 2. Mr.Shivdasani, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner union submitted that the members of the petitioner were all workmen engaged by respondent no.1 in the hygiene and washing departments and were entitled to be absorbed in the respondent no.1 company. The schedule attached to the order of reference reads thus : "The workmen employed by M/s.Taj Air Caterers, in the various department i.e. hygiene and washing as per the list of 91 & 84 employees shall be absorbed in the service of the company w.e.f. their respective date of joining as mentioned in the list." 3. It appears that after receipt of reference, the statement of claim came to be filed on 16th June, 2005 on behalf of 175 workmen. The case of the petitioner as canvassed by Mr.Shivdasani is that 91 workmen were engaged in hygiene department and 84 in the washing department of respondent no.1. The said workmen are stated to be engaged continuously and regularly by respondent no.1 through labour contractors one Zaffar Yusuf and one D.A.Siganporia. However, according to Mr.Shivdasani the arrangements with the contractors were sham and bogus and in fact only an arrangement on paper. The nature of work carried out by members of the petitioner were permanent and perennial in nature as otherwise business of respondent no.1 would suffer and therefore, workmen in both these departments were engaged continuously, without any break, in three shifts throughout the day for catering food to various airlines. The workmen were required for cleaning the entire department and ensure cleanliness in the kitchen and other areas. 4. Mr. Shivdasani submitted that the workers in hygiene were answerable to the Deputy Manager of respondent no.1 viz. Mrs.Vandana Walawalkar and those in the washing department worked under supervision of one Mr.Blaze Patel and others and were reporting to Duty Manager Mr.Deepak Nagalia. The appointment of labour contractors was sham and bogus only to set up an arrangement on paper. Mr.Shivdasani submitted that in answering the order of reference the Industrial Tribunal framed two issues which are as follows ; Issues Answer 1. The appointment of labour contractors was sham and bogus only to set up an arrangement on paper. Mr.Shivdasani submitted that in answering the order of reference the Industrial Tribunal framed two issues which are as follows ; Issues Answer 1. Whether the Second Party Union proves that the workmen concerned in this Reference are entitled for their demand of absorption in the employment of First Party Company with effect from their respective dates of joining as mentioned in the list attached to the Schedule of this Reference ? No 2. Whether the Second Party Workmen are entitled to any relief ? No 5. Both issues were answered in the negative. Mr.Shivdasani invited my attention to the fact that although issue of maintainability was initially raised, no such issue was framed and, therefore, the same was not relevant. Furthermore, the issue whether contract labour was required to be abolished was not subject matter of reference before the Industrial Tribunal. All that the Tribunal was concerned with was whether the arrangement between the contractors and respondent no.1 was sham and bogus and the claim of absorption can be maintained against the principal employer - respondent no.1 before the Industrial Tribunal. Mr.Shivdasani invited my attention to the observations of the Tribunal pertaining to the main dispute and that it was to be seen whether the concerned workmen were eligible for relief. 6. The impugned Award recorded that opening sentence of the reference indicated that the concerned workmen were employees of respondent no.1 and the contractors Zafar Yusuf and D.S. Siganporia were not originally party to the order of reference. It was submitted that said Zafar Yusuf was thereafter impleaded, However, Siganporia was not made party since he was not located at the material time. The Statement of Claim, Mr.Shivdasani submitted was on the basis that there is contract system in place. However, the labour contract system was a sham and bogus arrangement to deprive the workmen of their right as permanent employees of respondent no.1. Mr.Shivdasani submitted that the Industrial Tribunal had lost sight of factual aspects and proceeded to answer the issues in negative inasmuch as it held that the workmen were not entitled for absorption. Mr.Shivdasani further submitted that the Tribunal had failed to appreciate that the workmen were engaged on continuous basis,however, the Tribunal has wrongly denied them permanency by answering reference in the negative. 7. Mr.Shivdasani further submitted that the Tribunal had failed to appreciate that the workmen were engaged on continuous basis,however, the Tribunal has wrongly denied them permanency by answering reference in the negative. 7. In the course of his submissions Mr.Shivdasani relied upon decisions of this Court in Sudarshan Chemical Industries Ltd. vs. Labour Commissioner and Ors. 2013 (139) FLR 507 in which case, following the decision of the Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Others vs. National Union Water Front Workers and Others AIR 2001 SC 3527 , this Court had reiterated the Supreme Court''s observation that an industrial adjudicator will have to decide the issue whether the contract is ruse or camouflage and the question of abolition of such contract does not arise at all. That the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 which is a complete code in itself and the Apex Court found that if the contract is not found to be genuine or found to be a mere camouflage, the contract labourers will have to be treated as employees of the principal employer. He also relied upon decision in Hussainbhai, Calicut vs. the Alath Factory Thezhilal, Union, Khozhikode, and Others 1978 (37) FLR 136 wherein it was found by the Supreme Court that the workmen were an integral part of the industry and the workmen were broadly under the control of the Management and there existed a relationship of employer-employee. The Supreme Court had given short shrift to the contention that the petitioner had entered into agreements with intermediate contractors who had hired the members of the union and so no direct employer-employee relationship existed. Mr.Shivdasani also relied upon decision of the Steel Authority of India (supra) and submitted that it has been clearly held in all these cases that engagement of the contractor does not create a master and servant or an employer-employee relationship. 8. On behalf of the respondent, Mr.Naik opposed the petition on the ground that in the instant case there is no question of the workmen being employed by the principal employer. He submitted that the test to be applied to ascertain whether a person is an employee or an independent contractor may not automatically apply in finding out whether the contract labour agreement is sham and bogus. He quoted from paragraph 38 in case of International Authority of India vs. International Air Cargo Workers'' Union and Anr. He submitted that the test to be applied to ascertain whether a person is an employee or an independent contractor may not automatically apply in finding out whether the contract labour agreement is sham and bogus. He quoted from paragraph 38 in case of International Authority of India vs. International Air Cargo Workers'' Union and Anr. (2009) 13 SCC 374 to the effect that if the contract is for supply of labour, necessarily the labour supplied by the contractor will work under the directions, control and supervision of the principal employer but that would not make the worker a direct employee of the principal employer if the salary is paid by a contractor, if the right to regulate the employment is with the contractor, and the ultimate supervision and control lies with the contractor. He pressed this observation into service and contended that there is no merit in the challenge. 9. I have heard learned counsel at some length and upon perusal of the impugned Award I am of the view that no case is made out for interference. On the factual front, it is not in dispute that labour contractors Zaffar Yusuf and D.S. Siganporia had in fact been engaged. In the statement of claim itself, the petitioner had in paragraph 3 set out fact that the workers concerned were working in hygiene department of the respondent no.1 through labour contractor viz. Shri Zaffar Yusuf since last several years. The only allegation is that arrangement it is a paper arrangement. Perusal of the impugned Award also reveals that the Industrial Court found, after perusing various documents, evidence and hearing counsel, the scope of the order of reference does not contain absorption of contract system but was clearly entitled to ensure consideration whether the workmen were employed with the principal employer and whether a contract system existed with respondent no.1 company were sham and bogus and, if so, whether concerned workers were entitled in absorption. 10. The impugned Award has considered the case of the workmen and concludes after examining the statement of claim that there existed a contract system and there was evidence led to that effect and the contractor also claimed that all appointment letters were issued to the workmen under signature of the contractors and they maintained leave records and made all remunerations and wages including provident fund and ESIC contributions records. The supervisor appointed by the contractor Zaffar Yusuf was supervising and controlling the work force at the hygiene department. Similarly in the washing department D.S.Siganporia was supervising and controlling the work force. Although he was not party to the proceedings the court found that all documents relating to control, supervision and statutory record were indicative of the fact that the workmen were engaged by the contractor. 11. The Award in paragraph 44 refers to the submissions of Mr.Shivdasani to the effect that the workmen relied upon documents filed in the course of proceedings viz, the original identity cards, payment slips in respect of workmen. Each and every document was stamped by the contractor. Although the identity card was issued by the company, the document was stamped by the contractor indicating that the employee in question was an employee of the contractor and not a permanent employee of respondent no.1. The impugned Award holds that existence of the labour contract system was never disputed. It is the case of Mr.Shivdasani that although the employees worked as employees of the respondent no.1 from the year 1992, the only document placed on record is a contract between respondent no.1 company and the contractor dated 1st January, 1999 which was valid for one year upto 1st January, 2000. He submitted that unless it is shown that there were similar such agreements there would be good grounds for interference. 12. Apropos the contention that the contractor had himself stopped his business as on 1st April, 2000, Mr.Shivdasani submitted that the contract itself had expired on 1st January, 2000 and therefore, closure notice relied upon by the petitioner was dated April 2000 and was of no avail. I have also perused the copies of evidence on behalf of the contractor Zaffar Yusuf, who stated that he has been working as an independent contractor with respondent no.1. He has given details of statutory documents such as salary register, bonus register, leave register. All of these were maintained by him. His cross examination was adverted to. I have also perused the copies of evidence on behalf of the contractor Zaffar Yusuf, who stated that he has been working as an independent contractor with respondent no.1. He has given details of statutory documents such as salary register, bonus register, leave register. All of these were maintained by him. His cross examination was adverted to. After having considered all documents and oral evidence the impugned Award concludes that the Tribunal is only required to ascertain whether the contract system is sham and bogus and to that extent the Award records that it cannot be held that the workers/members of the petitioners are workers of respondent no.1 company since all documents placed on record including wage register, attendance register, certificate of registration, closure notice issued to the contractor and annual returns submitted all indicate that deductions were generally carried out by the contractors. The workmen were thus employed with the hygiene and washing departments of respondent no.1 through labour contractors who maintained all records as above. The workmen have not produced any positive evidence to establish that they were allotted day to day work by officers, managers and supervisors of respondent no.1 or that work was controlled or supervised by respondent no.1. 13. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned Award holds against the petitioner. I find that the impugned Award has marshalled the facts with reference to relevant evidence and has come to conclusions which are supported by the record. There is nothing to show that the impugned Award has failed to consider relevant material before it. Indeed the case of the workmen of direct employment has not be established. Nothing shown to me reveals any illegality or perversity which would justify interference. The challenge fails and accordingly, I pass the following order : (a) Writ Petition is dismissed. (b) No costs.