Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Zonal Manager, Food Corpn. Of India And ... vs D. Venkata Rao And Ors. on 30 October, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1997(1)ALT594, (1998)IIILLJ783AP
ORDER
1. Writ Appeals 276, 277 and 492 of 1995 have been filed challenging the common order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.Nos. 17306, 18193 and 18194 of 1989 respectively dated October 5, 1994, while Writ Appeal No. 281 of 1995 has been filed challenging the order of the learned single Judge dated November 8, 1994 in Writ Petition No. 17290 of 1989 disposing of this writ petition in terms of the common order dated Octobers, 1994.
2. The question to be considered in all these Writ Appeals is, whether the writ petitioners who are the respondents herein were the workmen of the Food Corporation of India and entitled to seek regularisation of their services even though they were the members of the Food Corporation of India, Modern Rice Mill Muta Workers Labour Contract Co-operative Society, Sattenapalli, Guntur District, who initially supplied the services of the writ petitioners to carry on the work of loading, unloading and processing of food-grains pertaining to the business of the Food Corporation of India ?
3. For the purpose of convenience, the parties to the appeals are referred to in the following manner-Food Corporation of India as' the Corporation', the writ petitioners-respondents as 'workmen' and the Food Corporation of India, Modern Rice Mill, Muta Workers Labour Contract Co-operative Society, Sattenapalli, Guntur district which was impleaded as 5th respondent in W.P.Nos. 18193 and 18194 of 1989 (Writ Appeal Nos. 277 and 492 of 1995 respectively) as 'the society'.
4. The facts not in dispute are that the Corporation is an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and that the 5th respondent Co-operative society is a society registered under the provisions of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, and the workmen were the members of the said Co-operative Society. However, Sri Viswanatham learned counsel for the respondents submits that all 94 workmen are not the members of the Co-operative society, but only a few among them are the members of the said society. The nature of work that the workmen have to perform is loading, unloading and also processing of food grains. They had started the work of loading, unloading and processing of the food grains right from 1975 till 1981. These workmen made a claim to the Corporation for regularisation of their services as they had been working with the Corporation for a considerable period viz., from 1975 to 1981 and in law the Corporation is the master and they are its servants. The claim of the workmen was denied by the Corporation on the ground that they are not its employees, but they are only contract Labourers, their services having been supplied through the Co-operative society. They are the members of the said society and as and when they perform the work in the Corporation, wages are being paid to them through the Co-operative society. Mere control of the Corporation on the workmen during working hours, when their services are supplied through the society, does not establish the relationship of Master and Servant. The Corporation hence refused to consider the claim of the workmen. Aggrieved by the same, the above mentioned writ petitions were filed seeking for the relief that the Corporation rejected the claim for regularisation of their services in most arbitrary and illegal way even though they continue to discharge the duties of loading, unloading and processing of the food grains in the Corporation since a long time. They also contended that there exists the relationship of Master and Servant between the Corporation and the workmen and the Corporation is not justified in refusing their just claim. On service of notice, the Corporation had put in appearance and filed its counter. In the counter, the stand taken by the Corporation is that at no time the petitioners were appointed as casual Labourers and the work of loading, unloading, and processing of food grains was entrusted to the contractors. The Corporation also gave particulars pertaining to the list of contractors with whom the Corporation had entered into contract for the supply of workmen for the period from 1974-87. It appears that a learned single Judge of this Court while issuing rule nisi, passed interim orders on December 13, 1989 directing the Corporation to consider the case of the workmen for appointment in the regular posts subject to their satisfying the criteria of eligibility. The same was considered by the Regional Manager of the Corporation and by his order dated April 5, 1990 he rejected the case of the petitioners finding that the petitioners are not entitled for appointment. The said fact was brought to the notice of the Court. The learned single Judge found that the Senior Manager has not applied his mind to the claim put forth by the writ petitioners in a reasonable and proper way and he should have noticed that the certificates produced by the petitioners were issued by the officers of the F.C.I. The said certificates were produced to show that the Corporation had engaged certain workmen directly on daily wage basis. The learned Judge also found that sufficient evidence was not produced by the petitioners to record a finding that the petitioners have been working continuously from the year 1978. Accordingly, the learned single Judge passed an order directing the respondents-Corporation to consider the claims of the writ petitioners for regularisation of their services on permanent basis afresh after taking into account the documents produced by the petitioners before this Court as well as any other material that may be produced by them before the Corporation, The learned Judge also directed that on production of such material if the Corporation finds that the writ petitioners have been working either directly under the authorities of F.C.I, or under the contractors employed by the authorities of the F.C.I, at least for a period of five years, then to appoint them on regular basis. Aggrieved by the latter portion of the directions of the learned single Judge that the petitioners who have been working either directly under the authorities of the F.C.I, or under the contractors employed by the authorities of the F.C.I, for a period of more than five years shall also be appointed on regular basis, the Corporation has filed these appeals.
5. Sri Anjaneyulu, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation argued that the approach of the learned single Judge in directing the Corporation to appoint the writ petitioners who have worked for more than five years with the Corporation in any capacity is incorrect and unsustainable. The question of regularisation will arise only when the relationship of employer and employee is established. The services of the workmen who are the members of the society were supplied to the Corporation to carry on the duties of loading and unloading which is essential and also processing. For the service rendered by them, the society paid their wages. Mere issuing of service certificates to some of the workmen by some officers of the Corporation does not confer any right on the workmen to claim regular appointment in the service of the Corporation. There cannot be a mandamus under Article 226 to do a positive act and at best the direction should have been to consider the case of the writ petitioners for regularisation, if entitled to. Since complicated question of fact - whether relationship of 'Master' and 'Servant' exists between the Corporation and the Workmen - is involved, which has to be decided by the Labour Court only, the learned single Judge ought to have held that the writ petition is not maintainable and thus rejected the claim of the writ petitioners.
6. Sri Viswanatham, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-workmen supported the order passed by the learned single Judge. According to him, no illegality has been committed by the learned Judge in giving a positive direction directing regularisation of the services of the workmen if they had worked for more than five years in any capacity with the Corporation. The non-raisting of the dispute with regard to the relationship of master and servant before the Labour Court is not fatal to the case of the writ petitioners. The writ petitioners were never the employees of the Co-operative society, but they were the employees of the Corporation. They were merely sponsored by the Co-operative society. When loading, unloading and processing work carried on by the writ petitioners is not denied, the only presumption that can be drawn is that they are the employees of the Corporation working as casual labourers. The workmen who have been working continuously for more than 6 to 7 years are entitled to have their services regularised. Thus, he sought that the appeals be dismissed.
7. Before going into the question whether there is relationship of employer and employee between the appellants-Corporation and the workmen, it is proper to extract some of the provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970.
8. The object of the Act is to regulate the employment of contract Labour in certain establishments and to provide for its abolition in certain circumstances and for matters connected therewith.
9. Section 2 (1) (c) of the 1970 Act defines 'Contractor' thus :
"Contractor" in relation to an establishment, means a person who undertakes to produce a given result for the establishment, other than mere supply of goods or articles of manufacture to such establishment, through contract Labour or who supplies contract Labour for any work of the establishment and includes a sub-contractor."
10. Section 2( 1) (g) defines 'Principal employer' thus:
'Principal employer' means -
(i) in relation to any office or department of the Government or a local authority, the head of that office or department or such other officer as the Government or the local authority, as the case may be, may specify in this behalf;
(ii) in a factory, the owner or occupier of the factory and where a person has been named as the manager of the factory under the Factories Act, 1948 (63 of 1949), the person so named;
(iii) in a mine the owner or agent of the mine and where a person has been made as the manager of the mine, the person so named;
(iv) in any other establishment, any person responsible for the supervision and control of the establishment."
11. Section 2( 1) (i) defines 'workman' thus:
"Workman" means any person employed in or in connection with the work of any establishment, to do any skilled, semi-skilled or unskilled manual, Supervisory, technical or clerical work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, but does not include any such person (A) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or (B) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding five hundred rupees per mensem or exercies, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature; or (C) who is an out-worker, that is to say, a person to whom any articles or materials are given out by or on behalf of the principal employer to be made up, cleaned, washed, altered, ornamented, finished, repaired, adapted or otherwise processed for sale for the purpose of the trade or business of the principal employer and the process is to be carried out either in the home of the out-worker or in some other premises, not being premises under the control and management of the principal employer."
12. Section 7 deals with registration of certain establishments. It reads thus :
"(1) Every principal employer of an establishment to which this applies shall within such period as the appropriate Government may, by notification in the official Gazette fix in this behalf with respect to establishments generally or with respect to any class of them, make an application to the registering officer in the prescribed manner for registration of establishment:
Provided that the registering officer may entertain any such application for registration after expiry of the period fixed in this behalf if the registering officer is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application in time.
(2) If the application for registration is complete in all respects, the registering officer shall register the establishment and issue to the principal employer of the establishment a certificate of registration containing such particulars as may be prescribed."
13. Section 8 deals with revocation of registration in certain cases that, if the registering officer is satisfied either on a reference made to him in this behalf or otherwise, that the registration of any establishment has been obtained by misrepresentation or suppression of any material fact, or that for any other reason the registration has become useless or ineffective and, therefore, requires to be revoked, the registering officer may after giving an opportunity to the principal employer of the establishment to be heard and with the previous approval of the appropriate Government, revoke the registration.
14. Section 9 deals with effect of nonregistration that no principal employer of an establishment, to which this Act applies, shall (a) in the case of an establishment required to be registered under Section 7 but which has not been registered within the time fixed for the purpose under that Section, (b) in the case of an establishment the registration in respect of which has been revoked under Section 8, employ contract Labour in the establishment after the expiry of the period referred to in Clause (a) or after the revocation of registration referred to in Clause (b), as the case may be.
15. Section 12 deals with the licensing of contractors that, (1) with effect from such date as the appropriate Government may, by notification in the official Gazette appoint, no contractor to whom this Act applies, shall undertake or execute any work through contract labour except under and in accordance with a licence issued in that behalf by the licensing officer, (2) subject to the provisions of this Act, a licence under sub-section (1) may contain such conditions including, in particular conditions as to hours of work, fixation of wages and other essential amenities in respect of contract labour as the appropriate Government may deem fit to impose in accordance with the rules, if any, made under Section 35 and shall be issued on payment of such fees and on the deposit of such sum, if any as security for the due performance of the conditions as may be prescribed.
16. Section 13 deals with the grant of licences that (1) Every application for the grant of a licence under Sub-section (1) of Section 12 shall be made in the prescribed form and shall contain the particulars regarding the location of the establishment, the nature of process, operation of work for which contract labour is to be employed and such other particulars as may be prescribed,(2) the licensing officer may make such investigation in respectof the application received under Sub-section (1) and in making any such investigation the licensing officer shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed, (3) a licence granted under this, Chapter shall be valid for the period specified therein and may be renewed from time to time for such period and on payment of such fees and on such conditions as may be prescribed.
17. Section 14 deals with revocation, suspension and amendment of licences that (1) if the licensing officer is satisfied, either on a reference made to him in this behalf or otherwise, that (a) a licence granted under Section 12 has been obtained by misrepresentation or suppression of any material fact, or (b) the holder of a licence has without reasonable cause, failed to comply with the conditions subject to which the licence has been granted or has contravened any of the provisions of this Act, the licensing officer may after givingthe holder of the licence an opportunity of showing cause, revoke or suspend the licence or forfeit the sum, if any, or any portion thereof deposited as security for the due performance of the conditions subject to which the licence has been granted, (2) subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf, the licensing officer may vary or amend a licence granted under Section 12.
18. Section 21 deals with the responsibility for payment of wages that (1) a contractor shall be responsible for payment of wages to each worker employed by him as contract Labour and such wages shall be paid before the expiry of such period as may be prescribed. (2) every principal employer shall nominate a representative duly authorised by him to be present at the time of disbursement of wages by the contractor and it shall be the duty of such representative to certify the amount paid as wages in such manner as may be prescribed, (3) it shall be the duty of the contractor to ensure the disbursement of wages in the presence of the authorised representative of the principal employer, (4) in case the contractor fails to make payment of wages within the prescribed period or makes short payment then the principal employer shall be liable to make payment of wages in full or the unpaid balance due, as the case may be, to the contract labour employed by the contractor and recover the amount so paid from the contractor either by deduction from any amount payable to the contractor under any contract or as a debt payable by the contractor.
19. Section 24 of the 1970 Act prescribes that, if any person contravenes any of the provisions of this Act or any rules made thereunder for which no other penalty is elsewhere provided, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
20. From the definition of "workman" extracted above, it is clear that the workman has to establish that he is 'employed in or in connection with the work of any establishment'. To avail the benefit under the Act, one has to prove that the establishment had registered itself as the principal employer under Section 7 of the 1970 Act and the contractor had obtained the licence under Section 12 of the Act. In order to establish whether the relationship of 'Master' and 'servant' is existing between the parties, it has to be established first (1) whether there was a contract of employment between the Corporation and the Workman through the society atleast indirectly and (2) whether the loading and unloading and processing service are incidental or integral part of the function of the Corporation. Mere exercise of control by the Corporation on the workman is not sufficient to hold that the authority so exercising control is the Principal Employer unless the source from where that power of control emerges is established. The power to suspend or to recommend to remove from service or test of control in order to establish relationship of master and servant are not the decisive factors in all the cases though they may be relevant at times. The object of 1970 Act has been explained by the Honourable Supreme Court in Vegoils (P) Ltd., v. The Workmen (1971-II-LLJ-567). The Hon'ble Supreme Court mainly considered the aspects when the contract labour can be said to be casual or perennial and permanent nature and when and under what circumstances the system of contract labour can be abolished in an industrial establishment. While considering the necessity or otherwise to abolish the contract labour in the case above and explaining the scope of Section 10 of Act, 1970, it was held that "Loading and unloading - where the facts show the drastic variation in the nature of work that has to be done by the contractor regarding loading and unloading of the wagons and trucks and that in other similar establishments also the work cannot be said to be of permanent or perennial nature, then, a direction for abolition of contract Labour in respect of loading and unloading cannot be issued". Regarding the establishment carrying business of manufacturing edible oils, soaps etc. the Supreme Court held that feeding of hoppers was an essential part of the industry and the work being of perennial nature could be done by permanent employees and in those cases the abolition of contract labour was held to be valid. Of course, as far as this decision is concerned, though it is cited at the bar, on facts, directly it has no application to the present case. But, on application of the principle laid down by the Apex Court, it cannot be said that the work in question is of permanent nature.
21. Then, who is 'Master' and who is 'servant' with reference to Sections 2(s) and 2(g) of the Industrial Disputes Act it has been explained by the Supreme Court in Hussainbhai v. Alath Factory Tozhilali union (1978-II-LLJ-3.97) wherein it was held as follows;
"5. The true test may, with brevity, be indicated once again. Where a worker or group of workers labour to produce goods or services and these goods or services are for the business of another, that other is, in fact, the employer. He has economic control over the workers' subsistence, skill, and continued employment. If he, for any reason, chokes off, the worker is, virtually, laid off. The presence of intermediate contractors with whom alone the workers have immediate or direct relationship ex contractu is of no consequence when, on lifting the veil, or looking at the conspectus of factors governing employment, we discern the naked truth, though draped in different perfect paper arrangement, that the real employer is the Management, not the immediate contractor. Myriad devices, half-hidden in fold after fold of legal form depending on the degree of concealment needed, the type of industry, the local conditions and the like, may be resorted to when labour legislation casts welfare obligation on the real employer, based on Articles 38, 39, 42, 43 and 43-A of the Constitution. The Court must be astute to avoid the mischief and achieve the purpose of the law and not be misled by the maya of legal appearances.
6. If the livelihood of the workmen substantially depends on Labour rendered to produce goods and services for the benefit and satisfaction of an enterprise, the absence of direct relationship or the presence of dubious intermediaries or the make-believe trappings of detachment from the Management cannot snap the real-life bond. The story may vary but the inference define ingenuity. The liability cannot be shaken off"
22. The existence of relationship of 'Master' and 'servant' in the presence of a contractor, what factors should be taken into consideration to decide whether there is relationship of 'Master' and 'servant' and in the absence of a certificate of licence by the employer or contractor what will be the effect on the position of the workman, have been explained in the following decisions.
23. In National Airport Authority, Delhi v. Bangalore Airport Service Co-op. Society and Ors. (1992-II-LLJ-534), a Division Bench of Karnataka High Court held as follows:
"In order to determine whether there was relationship of employer and employee, two questions have to be decided. First, whether there was a contract of employment between the appellants and the applicants, atleast indirectly. Secondly, whether the porterage service was incidental or integral part of the functions of the airport authorities. The Labour Court and the learned single Judge committed an error to arrive at a conclusion that there was relationship of employer and employee between the appellants and the applicants, merely because the appellants had little control over the activity and attitude of the applicants while discharging their duties of porterage service, without noticing that mere exercise of control is not sufficient to hold that the authority so exercising the control is the principal employer without noticing from where that part of control emerges. So also, the power to suspend or to recommend to remove from service is also not an important factor. The test of control may be a relevant factor but it is not the decisive factor in master-servant relationship in all cases."
24. A Division Bench of this Court in Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., v. Kota Posham, 1989 II L.L.N. 578. while dealing with the case of i absorption of a workman, it was held thus:
"A contractor labour working in an establishment in public sector under a contractor is not entitled to claim absorption on regular basis without being sponsored by an Employment Exchange even if he has worked continuously for five years. It is open to the establishments in public sector to choose the media of Employment Exchange for filling up vacancies and the establishment cannot be compelled to appoint persons other than those sponsored by the Employment Exchanges. The word "employer" as such is not defined. On the other hand, the definition of 'Principal employer' denotes the existence of a middle man, viz., the contractor. Therefore, there is no direct "master and servant" relationship between the company and the contract labour. It may be that the contract labour come under the definition of employees within the restricted meaning as mentioned in the Act of 1970; but that does not mean that they are the regular, employees.."
25. A Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Gian Singh v. Food Corporation of India, Punjab Region 1992 I L.L.N 881 while dealing about the claim of security guards appointed for temporary purpose in addition to its own staff of the F.C. 1 held that the persons who have been employed for a temporary period through a contractor are not entitled for absorption, in the absence of a notification by the Central Government prohibiting the contract labour in the Corporation and would remain employees of contractor and not of Corporation.
26. The decision relied upon by the counsel for the appellants in Mathura Refinery Mazdoor Sangh v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Mathura Refinery Project . is of no assistance to the appellants because the Supreme Court has observed only that the suggestions/ directions given by the Tribunal cannot be further improved upon, The suggestions made by the Tribunal were that the management to ensure that the contract Labour is paid at least the minimum of the pay scale, to give preference to those: workmen in its empolyment by waiving the requirement of age and other qualifications etc.
27. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that since no licence or certificate was obtained by the Contractor to supply the workmen through the Co-operative society, they are not valid members of the society and as such they cannot have any claim against the Corporation. The learned counsel for the respondents, however, contended that when the workmen supplied through the Co-operative Society were enlisted by the Corporation and were allowed to continue to work for several years, their claims are just ones and they are deemed to have been absorbed in the service of the Corporation, and the fact that no licence was obtained by the society is no ground to refuse the claim of the workmen. Section 12 of the Act deals about the obtaining of licence by the Contractors, the scope of which, has been explained by a Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd., v. Steel Authority of India Ltd., Contract Workers Union and Ors. 1992 I L.L.N. 397 to the effect that the failure of the contractor to obtain a licence by itself cannot result in creating any direct relationship of employer-employee between the Corporation and the contract labour. Similar was the view taken by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Gian Singh v. Food Corporation of India, Punjab Region (supra). While explaining Sections 2(e), 2(g), 7and 12 of Act, 1971, 1970(sic. 1970), the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that where the Principal employer was registered as required under Section 7 and / or contractor has not obtained licence under Section 12 of the Act, in such circumstances, the persons so appointed by principal employer through contractor will not be deemed to be direct employees of principal employer and if the principal employer employs persons through contractor in spite of no registration, penal provisions under Sections 23 and 24 of the Act have to be invoked. Therefore, it is clear that persons appointed by principal employer through a contractor who has not obtained licence under Section 12 of the Act will not be deemed to be direct employees of principal employer and as such the contention of the workmen that since their services were enlisted by the corporation and allowed to continue for several years, they were deemed to have been absorbed by the Corporation has no merit. However, we cannot go into the aspect whether the contractor has obtained the licence in this case or not as it is a factual aspect which has to be gone into by the Industrial Tribunal. Whether there was relationship of 'Master' and 'Servant' between the Corporation and the workmen is also a factual aspect which we cannot go into in these proceedings. That is also a matter to be gone into by the Industrial Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence.
28. Regarding the maintainability of the writ petitions, Sri Viswanatham learned counsel appearing for the workmen contended that in view of he law laid down by the Supreme Court in R.K. Panda v. Steel Authority of India, (1997-III-LLJ-(Suppl.)-1202) in cases where this Court feels that the relationship of 'Master' and 'servant' can be divided on the material available it is not necessary once again to ask the parties to go before the Labour Court, and the said aspect can very well be decided by this Court itself. But, it is difficult to accept the said contention for the reason that in Panda's case, (supra) the Supreme Court did not say that even in the existence of a disputed questions of fact, the High Court can interfere and adjudicate the disputed facts in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In this connection, the following observation of the Supreme Court is useful to be quoted :
"......Whether the contract labourers have become the employees of the principal employer in course of time and whether the engagement and employment of labourers through a contractor is a mere camouflage and a smokescreen, as has been urged in this case, is a question of fact and has to be established by the contract Labourers on the basis of the requisite material. It is not possible for the High Court or this Court while exercising writ jurisdiction or jurisdiction under Article 136 to decide such questions, only on the basis of affidavits. It need not be pointed out that in all such cases, the Labourers are initially employed and engaged by the contractors. As such at what point of time a direct link is established between the contract Labourers and the principal employer, eliminating the contractor from the scene, is a matter which has to be established on material produced before the Court. Normally, the Labour Court and the Industrial Tribunal, under the Industrial Disputes Act are the competent for a to adjudicate such disputes on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence produced before them."
29. However, in the case before the Supreme Court, it was found that a number of Labourers were allowed to continue in the employment by virtue of different interim orders passed by the Supreme Court and also taking into consideration the other special circumstances of the case before it, the Apex Court instead of remitting the matter to the Labour Court, gave certain directions for absorption of the contract Labourers in order to avoid any confusion in the matter. It is only because of the special reasons given in the judgment, the Supreme Court did not direct the parties to go before the Labour Court to establish their case. But, the special reasons recorded by the Supreme Court in the judgment supra are not existing in this case and as such we reject the contention of Mr. Viswanatham.
30. Since disputed questions of fact and law are involved in the instant case, the learned Single Judge would have been justified if the parties were directed to agitate the matter before the Labour Court after adducing necessary oral and documentary evidence in support of their contentions. Instead of that, the learned Judge had: straightaway issued directions to appoint the petitioners-workmen who had been found to be working either directly under the authorities of the Corporation or under the contractors employed by the authorities at least for a period of five years, on regular basis. In view of the settled position in law, we feel that such a direction cannot be issued by this Court. Further, unless the disputed question of fact of existence of 'Master' and 'Servant' relationship between the Corporation and the workmen is established in favour of the petitioners-workmen, a direction to regularise their services does not arise. Since such a disputed question of fact has to be established only before the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act, we feel it is proper to direct the parties to approach the Labour Court for proper adjudication on the disputed questions of fact. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the order of the learned single Judge and direct both the parties to agitate their rights before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. The decision of the Labour Court shall bind both the parties.
31. By virtue of this litigation lot of time has already been spent and, therefore, no purpose would be served if the workmen are directed to raise a dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act requesting the Government under Section 10 of the Act to refer the matter to the Labour Court for adjudication. Therefore, we feel it proper if both the parties are directed to straightaway approach the Labour Court to file their representations. Sri Anjaneyulu, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the Corporation will have no objection if the workmen raise an industrial dispute directly before the Labour Court instead of approaching the Government to refer the same. In view of such circumstances, we direct the petitioners workmen to make their claim / representation before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court as to their claim furnishing a copy of the same to the Management of the Corporation. The Corporation, within fifteen days from the date of receipt of such representation/claim petition, file its counter taking all the objections. Both the parties are at liberty to file all the material documents which they want to rely upon and shall also furnish the list of witnesses they want to be examined in their favour. The Labour Court shall conduct enquiry in accordance with law and after giving opportunity to both the parties, keeping in mind the Principles laid down in the cases cited supra on the relevant issues and then pass appropriate orders as to the existence or otherwise of relationship of 'Master' and 'Servant' between the Corporation and the Workmen-petitioners and pass award accordingly. In case, the Labour Court comes to the view that the workmen have established their case of existence of 'Master' and 'Servant' relationship between them and the Corporation, then, it shall also give a finding whether they are entitled for regularisation of their services with all consequential benefits. Both the parties shall co-operate with the Labour Court to get the matter disposed of as expeditiously as possible. In any case, the Labour Court shall dispose of the matter by the end of June, 1997.
32. In the result, the appeals are allowed and the order of the learned single Judge is set aside and the parties are directed to approach the Labour Court for adjudication of the disputed questions of fact, as indicated above. No costs.