Mahender Kumar v. State of Haryana & Ors

INoTHEoHIGHoCOURToOFoPUNJABo&oHARYANAo AToCHANDIGARH **** CWP-16400-2014 thDateoofoDecision:o14 oDecember,o2023 MahenderoKumar o.....oPetitioner Versus StateoofoHaryanaoandoothers ooooo.....oRespondents CORAM:oHON'BLEoMR.oJUSTICEoHARSHoBUNGER Present: Mr.oVikasoKuthiala,oAdvocate forotheopetitioner. Mr.oPraveenoChanderoGoyal,oAddl.oA.G.,oHaryana. Mr.oJasmeetoSinghoBedi,oAdvocate fororespondentsoNo.2oando3. ***** HARSHoBUNGERoJ.o(ORAL)

¶1Petitioner o (Mahender o Kumar)o has o filed o the o instant o writ petitionounderoArticleso226/227oofotheoConstitutionoofoIndiaoseekingosetting aside oof o award o dated o 13.01.2014 o (Annexure o P-2) o passed o by o learned IndustrialoTribunal-cum-LabouroCourt,oHisaro(hereinafteroreferredotooaso'the Tribunal'),owherebyotheoreferenceoofoindustrialodisputeoraisedobyopetitioner, regardingoterminationoofohisoservices,ohasobeenodecidedoagainstohim. Aofurtheroprayerohasobeenomadeoforodirectingotheorespondentsoto takeobackotheopetitioneroinoserviceoandotoograntoallotheoconsequentialobenefits toohim.

¶2Briefly,otheopetitioneroraisedoanoindustrialodisputeowithoregardoto terminationoofohisoservicesobyoservingodemandonoticeodatedo15.05.2012oand uponofailureoofotheoconciliationoproceedings,otheosameowasoreferredotoothe Tribunalobelowoforoadjudication.

¶3Asoperotheoclaimoofopetitioner,oheowasoappointedoasoaoFiremanoin theoOfficeoofoMarketoCommittee,oFatehabad,oafterofollowingotheoproper procedure.oPetitioneroclaimedothatoheowasoappointedoonocontractobasis throughoplacement/outsourcingoagency,onamelyoM/soMillenniumoManpower Agency o (respondent o No.5 o herein), o and o he o worked o continuously o from

03.11.2006otoo31.07.2011oinotheoOfficeoofoMarketoCommittee,oFatehabad underotheosupervisionoandocontroloofoMarketoCommittee,oFatehabad,oM/s NarwaloSuperoSecurityoandoM/soMillenniumoManpoweroAgency.oItowas statedothatotheopetitionerowasobeingopaidotheowagesoasofixedobyotheoDeputy CommissionerofromotimeotootimeounderotheoMinimumoWagesoAct.oPetitioner furtheroclaimedothatohisoservicesowereoterminatedow.e.f.o01.08.2011,oin violationoofotheoprovisionsoofoSectionso25-N,o25-F,o25-Goando25-Hoofothe IndustrialoDisputesoAct,o1947o(hereinafterotoobeoreferredoaso'theo1947oAct').

¶4Onotheo otherohand,o theoaforesaidoclaimoofo petitionerowas opposedobyotheorespondent-Department,oi.e.oHaryanaoStateoAgricultural MarketingoBoard/MarketoCommitteeo(respondentsoNo.1otoo3oherein)oby raisingoaopreliminaryosubmissionothatotheoCommitteeowasonotoano'Industry' norotheopetitionerowasoao'workman'oinotermsoofoSectionso2(j)oando2(s)oofothe 1947oAct,orespectively.oOnomerits,otheorespondent-Departmentostatedothatothe petitionerowasoappointedoasoaoFiremanoinotheoOfficeoofoMarketoCommittee, Fatehabadothroughoaoplacement/outsourcingoagency,ohowever,oitowasofurther submitted o that o the o petitioner o was o not o appointed o only o through M/soMillenniumoManpoweroAgencyo(respondentoNo.5),oratheroheowas engagedothroughodifferentoplacement/outsourcingoagencies,oi.e.oM/soDahiya SecurityoandoPlacementoServices,oHisar,oM/soShreeoGaneshoSecurity,oJind, Vikram o Security, o Hisar, o M/s o Sandhu o Security, o Panchkula o and M/soMillenniumoManpoweroAgency.oItowasoexplainedobyotheorespondent-Departmentoinoitsoreplyothatofromo01.02.2010oupotoo31.08.2010,otheopetitioner wasopaidosalaryodirectlyobyotheoBoardoasoduringotheosaidoperiod,oM/soSandhu Security,oPanchkulaowasoblacklistedoforonon-paymentoofowagesotoothe personsoengagedobyoit.oItowasoalsootheostandooforespondent-Department that o the o petitioner o had o worked o only o up o to o 31.03.2011 o through placement/outsourcingoagenciesoandonotoupotoo30.07.2011,oasoclaimedoby him.oItowasofurtheroclarifiedothatoaftero31.03.2011,otheopetitionerowasonot engagedoasotheocontractoofotheoBoardowithoM/soMillenniumoManpower Agency o (respondent o No.5 o herein) o had o expired o and o thereafter o w.e.f.

01.10.2011,oanotheroplacement/outsourcingoagency,oi.e.oEagleoEyeoSecurity, wasoprovidedotheocontract. Withotheoaforesaidosubmissions,otheostandowasotakenobyothe respondent-Departmentothatothereowasonoorelationshipoofoemployeroand employeeobetweenotheoDepartmentoandotheopetitioner.oAccordingly,oprayer forodismissaloofoclaimoofotheopetitionerowasomade.

¶5Fromotheopleadingsoofotheoparties,otheoTribunalobelowoframed theofollowingoissues:- "1.oWhetherotheopetitionerowasotheoemployeeoofoHaryanaoState AgriculturaloMarketingoBoardooroofotheoContractor?oOPoParties.

2.oooIfoitoisofoundothatotheopetitionerowasotheoemployeeoofoHaryanaoState AgriculturaloMarketigoBoard,owhetheroterminationoofohisoservicesowas illegal,oifoso,otoowhatoreliefoheoisoentitledoto?oOPoParties.

3.oooRelief"

¶6Thereafter,obothotheopartiesoledotheirorespectiveoevidenceobefore theoTribunalobelow.oPetitioner,oinoorderotooproveohisoclaim,oappearedohimself as o WW-1 o and o on o the o other o hand, o respondent-Department o examined Sh. o Gandhi o Lal, o Assistant o Fire o Station o Officer, o Market o Committee, FatehabadoasoMW-1.

¶7Uponoconsideringotheomaterial/evidenceoavailableoonorecord, Tribunalobelowoansweredotheoreferenceoagainstotheopetitionerovideoaward datedo13.01.2014o(AnnexureoP-2)obyoholdingothatoheowasonotoentitledotooany relief.oAccordingly,opetitionerofiledotheoinstantowritopetitionobeforeothisoCourt.

¶8LearnedocounseloforotheopetitionerosubmitsothatotheoTribunal belowohasoerredoinolawoandofactoinorejectingotheoclaimoofopetitioneroand answering o the o reference o against o him, o without o appreciating o the material/evidence o available o on o record. o It o is o submitted o that o there o was sufficientomaterialoavailableoonorecordotooshowothatotheopetitionerowasoinofact anoemployeeoofotheorespondent-Departmento(respondentsoNo.1otoo3oherein). Itoisofurtherosubmittedothatoevenoifoitoisopresumedothatotheopetitionerowas appointedobyotheorespondent-Departmentothroughotheocontractoroevenothen theototalosupervisionoandocontrolooverotheopetitionerowasooforespondent No.3o–oMarketoCommittee,oHisar;oaccordingly,otheorelationshipoofoemployer andoemployeeobetweenotheorespondent-Departmentoandotheopetitionerowas established,ohowever,otheosameowasowronglyonotoconsideredobyotheoTribunal below.oLearnedocounseloforotheopetitionerocontendsothatoneitherotheoMarket Committee,oHisaro(respondentoNo.3)onorotheocontractorsowereoregistered underotheoprovisionsoofotheoContractoLabouro(Regulationso&oAbolition)oAct, 1970o(hereinafteroreferredotooaso'theo1970oAct'),oaccordingly,otheoimpugned awardodatedo13.01.2014o(AnnexureoP-2)oisonotosustainable. With o the o aforesaid o submissions, o learned o counsel o for o the petitionerohasoprayedoforoallowingotheoinstantowritopetitionobyosettingoaside awardodatedo13.01.2014o(AnnexureoP-2)opassedobyotheoTribunaloandofurther directingotheorespondentsotootakeobackotheopetitioneroinoserviceoandotoogrant allotheoconsequentialobenefitsotoohim.

¶9Perocontra,olearnedoStateocounseloappearingofororespondents No.1otoo3,ohasoopposedotheoprayeromadeobyolearnedocounseloforotheopetitioner byosubmittingothatotheoTribunalobelowohasopassedoaowelloreasonedoand justifiedoorder,owhichodoesonotocalloforoanyointerferenceobyothisoCourt. LearnedoStateocounselosubmitsothatotheopetitionerowasoengagedothroughoan outsourcing o agency, o for o which o agreement o was o executed o between o the Department o and o the o contractor, o which o was o a o genuine o contract; o and accordingly,oitowasosubmittedothatothereowasonoorelationshipoofoemployeroand employeeobetweenotheoDepartmentoandotheopetitioner.oAccordingly,olearned Stateocounselohasoprayedoforodismissaloofotheoinstantowritopetition.

¶10Iohaveoheardolearnedocounseloforotheopartiesoandoperusedothe paperobookowithotheiroableoassistance.

¶11Inotheoinstantocase,otheoTribunalobelowowhileodecidingothe referenceovideoawardodatedo13.01.2014o(AnnexureoP-2)oheldoasounder:- "22. oAfterohearingotheoLdoARsoofotheopartiesoandogoing throughotheoevidenceoonotheofile.oIoamotheoviewothatotheoonly questionoforodeterminationoinothisocaseoisowhetherotheoalleged contractualosystemowasomerelyoaoruse/camouflageooroshamoto evadeocomplianceowithovariousobeneficialolegislationsosooasoto depriveotheoworkersoofotheobenefitothereunderooroitowas genuine.oItoisowellosettledothatoifothisocourtofindsothatothe contractobetweenotheoprincipaloemployeroandotheocontractoroto be o a o sham, o nominal o or o merely o a o camouflage o to o deny employmentobenefitsotootheoemployeeoandothatothereowasoinofact aodirectoemployment,oitocanogiveoreliefotootheoemployeeoby holdingothatotheoworkmanoisotheodirectoemployeeoofotheAPURVA principleoemployeroandotoodoosooitocanoliftotheoveil.oTheotwo wellorecognizedotestsotoofindooutowhetherotheocontractolabourois theodirectoemployeeoofotheoprincipleoemployeroare:-oi)owhether theoprincipaloemployeropaysosalaryoinsteadoofocontractor,oand

ii)owhetherotheoprincipaloemployerocontrolsoandosupervisesothe workoofotheoemployeeoasolaidodownobyotheoHon'bleoApexoCourt inoBharatoLal'soCaseo(supra)oInothisocaseobothotheotestsoare satisfied.

23.oItoisoprovedofromotheoevidenceothatotheosalaryotoothe petitioner o except o during o theo period o from o 01.02 o 2010o to

31.08.2010owhenosalaryotoohimowasopaidobyotheoBoardodirectly as o theo outsourcingo agencyo namely o M/s o Sandhu o Security. Panchkulaothroughowhomoheowasoemployedoduringosaidoperiod wasoblacklistedoonoaccountoofononopaymentoofowagesotoothe staffoemployedobyotheosaidoagencyowasobeingopaidobyoine contractors.oThisofactoisoadmittedobyotheopetitioneroinohis statementoasoWW1oandohisofurtheroprovedofromotheostatement ofoMW1oSh.oGandhioLal,oAssistantoFireoStationoOfficerowhose statementoonosaidopointowasonotochallengedoinohisocross examination.oTheocontroloandosupervisionoonotheoworkoofothe petitioneroasodefinedoinoInternationaloAirportoAuthorityoof India'socaseo(supra)owasoalsooofotheocontractors.

24.o Theo nexto questiono which o arises o for o determinationo is whetherotheocontractionsonamelyoM/soShreeoGaneshoSecurity, JindoVikramoSecurityoHisar,oM/soSandhuoSecurity,oPanchkula andoM/soMillenniumoManpower,oAgencyo(respondentonoo5) wereoregisteredounderotheoContractoLabouro(Regulationo& Abolition)oActo1970ooronot,oifonototheoconsequencesothereof.oNo documentohasobeenoplacedoonotheofileotooproveothatothe contractorsoM/soShreeoGaneshoSecurity,oJindoVikramoSecurity, Hisar,oM/soSandhuoSecurity,oPanchkulaoandoM/soMillennium Manpower,oAgencyo(respondentono.o5)owereoregisteredounder theoContractoLabouro(Regulationo&oAbolition)oActo1970oasothe licensedocontractors,obutoinoabsenceoofoanyootheroevidenceothis factoaloneodoesonotoleadotootheoconclusionothatotheoContract LabourosystemowasoaoshamooroaocamouflageoasoheldobyotheAPURVA Hon'bleoApexoCourtoinoMunicipaloCorporationoofoGreater Mumbai'socaseo(supra).

25.oHavingobeenoarrivedoatotheoconclusionothatotheopetitioner wasonotoemployedobyorespondentsonoo1otoo3odirectlyoandothere was o no o relationship o of o master o and o servant o between o the respondentsonoo1otoo3oandotheopetitioneroandofurtherohaving beingoarrivedoatotheoconclusionothatotheopetitionerowasoinofact employedobyorespondentono.o3othroughoplacement/outsourcing agenciesonamelyoM/soShreeoGaneshoSecurity,oJind,oVikram Security,oHisar,oM/soSandhuoSecurityoPanchkulaoandoM/s MillenniumoManpower.oAgencyo(respondentonoo5)oforothe period o from o 01.04.2008 o to o 30.04.2008, o 03.05.2008 o to

31.08.2009,o 01.09.2009o to o 31.08.2010o ando 13.09.2010o to

31.03.2011,otheopetitioneroisonotoentitledotooanyoreliefoasohe wasorelievedoofohisodutyoonlyoafterotheocompletionoofothe contractooforespondentonoo5owithorespondentonoo3oandoheohad notocompletedomoreothano240odaysoduringohisoemploymentowith respondentono.o3othroughorespondentonoo5.oHadoheocompleted moreothano240odaysoandotheocontractooforespondentono.o3owith respondentono.o5owouldohaveobeenoinoexistence,otheomatter would o have o been o otherwise. o Therefore o the o violation o of provisionsocontainedounderoSectiono25-Foisonotoproved.

26.oTheopetitionerohasoalsooallegedoviolationoofoprovisions containedounderoSectionso25-Goando25-HoofotheoActosubmitting thatoatotheotimeohisoservicesowereoterminated,ojunioroemployees toohimowereoretainedoandothereafteroneworecruitmentotoothe postowasomadeowithoutoaffordingohimoanoopportunityoofore-employment,obutoheodidonotoleadoanyoevidenceotooproveosaid fact.o He o dido not o discloseo theo name oof o anyo person o who accordingotoohimowasojuniorotoohimoandowasoretainedoatothe timeoofoterminatingohisoservicesoorowasorecruitedothereafteroby respondent o no o 5 o the o last o placement/outsourcing o agency through owhom o he o was o employed. o Therefore, o violationo of provisionsocontainedounderoSectionso25-Goando25-HoofotheoAct isonotoproved.oThisoissueois,otherefore,odecidedoagainstothe RELIEF

27.oForotheoreasonsodiscussedohereinbefore,otheopetitionerohas notobeenofoundoentitledotooanyoreliefoand,otherefore,oreference madeotoothisocourtostandsodecidedoaccordinglyoagainstothe petitioner."

¶12Aoperusaloofotheoaboveoextractedofindingsowouldomanifestothat uponoconsiderationoofotheomaterial/evidenceoavailableoonorecord,oitohasobeen heldobyotheoTribunalobelowothatotheosalaryoofopetitionerowasobeingopaid directlyobyotheooutsourcingoagency,onamelyoM/soSandhuoSecurity,oPanchkula, through o whom o the o petitioner o was o employed o (except o for o the o period

01.02.2010oupotoo31.08.2010,owhenotheosaidoM/soSandhuoSecurity,oPanchkula wasoblacklistedoonoaccountoofonon-paymentoofowagesotooitsostaff).oTheosaid factowasoadmittedobyotheopetitioneroinohisostatementoandotheosameowasofurther substantiatedobyotheostatementoofoSh.oGandhioLal,oAssistantoFireoStation Officer,oMarketoCommittee,oFatehabado(MW-1).oItohasofurtherobeenoheldothat controloandosupervisionoonotheoworkoofotheopetitionerowasoofotheocontractors. Asoregardsotheopleaoofopetitionerothatoneitherotheorespondent-Department (respondentsoNo.1otoo3oherein)onorotheocontractorsowereoregisteredounderothe 1970oAct,otherefore,otheocontractosystemowasoaoshamoandocamouflage;osuffice itotoosayothatotheosaidoissueoisonoomoreoresointegraoasotheopositionostands settledobyotheoHon'bleoSupremeoCourtoinotheocaseoofo"SteeloAuthorityoof IndiaoLtd.ov.oNationaloUnionoWateroFrontoWorkers",o2001(4)oSCTo1, whereinotheofollowingofindingsowereoreturned:o-o "124. Theoupshotoofotheoaboveodiscussionoisooutlinedothuso:

(1)o(a)oBeforeoJanuaryo28,o1986,otheodeterminationoofothe question o whether o Central o Government o or o the o State GovernmentoisotheoappropriateoGovernmentoinorelationotooan establishment,owillodepend,oinoviewoofotheodefinitionoofothe expressiono"appropriateoGovernment"oasostoodoinotheoCLRA Act,oonotheoanswerotooaofurtheroquestion,oisotheoindustryounderAPURVA considerationocarriedoonobyoorounderotheoauthorityoofothe Central o Government o or o does o it o pertain o to o anyo specified controlledoindustry;oorotheoestablishmentoofoanyorailway, cantonment o board,o majoro port,o mineo oro oil ofieldo oro the establishmentoofobankingooroinsuranceocompany?oIfotheoanswer isoinotheoaffirmative,otheoCentraloGovernmentowillobeothe appropriateoGovernment;ootherwiseoisorelationotooanyoother establishmento theoGovernment oof otheoStateoino which othe establishment o was o situated, o would o be o the o appropriate Government.

(b)oAfterotheosaidodateoinoviewoofotheonewodefinitionoofothat expression,otheoanswerotootheoquestionoreferredotooabove,ohas toobeofoundoinoclauseo(a)oofoSectiono2o oofotheoIndustrial Disputes o Act, o if o (i) o the o concerned o Central o Government company/undertakingooroanyoundertakingoisoincludedotherein eoonomine,ooro(ii)oanyoindustryoisocarriedoono(a)obyoorounder theoauthorityoofotheoCentraloGovernment,ooro(b)obyorailway company;ooro(c)obyospecifiedocontrolledoindustry,othenothe CentraloGovernment o willo beo theo appropriateo Government otherwise o in o relation o to o any o other o establishment, o the GovernmentoofotheoStateoinowhichothatootheroestablishmentois situated,owillobeotheoappropriateoGovernment.

(2)o(a)oAonotificationounderoSectiono10(1)oofotheoCLRAoAct prohibitingoemploymentoofocontractolabouroinoanyoprocess, operationoorootheroworkoinotheoanyoestablishmentohasotoobe issuedobyotheoappropriateoGovernmento:

(1)oafteroconsultingowithotheoCentraloAdvisoryoBoardoorothe StateoAdvisoryoBoard,oasotheocaseomayobe,oand;

(2)ohavingoregardotoo

(i)oconditionsoofoworkoandobenefitsoprovidedoforotheocontract labouroinotheoestablishmentoinoquestion;oand

(ii)ootherorelevantofactorsoincludingothoseomentionedoinosub-sectiono(2)oofoSectiono10;

(b)oinasmuchoasotheoimpugnedonotificationoissuedobyothe CentraloGovernmentoonoDecembero9,o1976odoesonotosatisfyothe aforesaidorequirementsoofoSectiono10oitoisoquashedobutoweodoAPURVA sooprospectivelyoi.e.ofromotheodateoofothisojudgmentoandosubject tootheoclarificationothatoonotheobasisoofothisojudgmentonooorder passedooronooactionotakenogivingoeffectotootheosaidonotification onoorobeforeotheodateoofothisojudgment,oshallobeocalledoin questionoinoanyotribunaloorocourtoincludingoaoHighoCourtoifoit hasootherwiseoattainedofinalityoand/oroitohasobeenoimplemented.

(3)oNeitheroSectiono10oofotheoCLRA oActonoroanyoother provisiono ino theo Act,o whether oexpresslyoorobyo necessary implication,oprovidesoforoautomaticoabsorptionoofocontract labouroonoissuingoaonotificationobyoappropriateoGovernment underosub-sectiono(1)oofoSectiono10,oprohibitingoemploymentoof contractolabour,oinoanyoprocess,ooperationoorootheroworkoin any o establishment. o Consequently o the o principal o employer cannotobeorequiredotooorderoabsorptionoofotheocontractolabour workingoinotheoconcernedoestablishment.

(4)oWeoover-ruleotheojudgmentoofothisocourtoinoAiroIndia'socase (supra)oprospectivelyoandodeclareothatoanyodirectionoissuedoby anyoindustrialoadjudicator/anyocourtoincludingoHighoCourt,ofor absorptionoofocontractolabourofollowingotheojudgmentoofoinoAir India'socaseo(supra),oshalloholdogoodoandothatotheosameoshall notobeosetoaside,oalteredooromodifiedoonotheobasisoofothis judgmentoinocasesowhereosuchoaodirectionohasobeenogivenoeffect tooandoitohasobecomeofinal.

(5)oOnoissuanceoofoprohibitiononotificationounderoSectiono10(1) ofotheoCLRAoActoprohibitingoemploymentoofocontractolabouroor otherwise,oinoanoindustrialodisputeobroughtobeforeoitobyoany contract o labour o in o regard o to o conditions o of o service, o the industrialoadjudicatorowill ohaveotooconsidero theoquestion whetherotheocontractorohasobeenointerposedoeitheroonothe groundoofotheohavingoundertakenotooproduceoanyogivenoresult forotheoestablishmentooroforosupplyoofocontractolabouroforowork ofotheoestablishmentounderoaogenuineocontractooroisoaomere ruse/camouflageotooevadeocomplianceoofovariousobeneficial legislationso so o aso too depriveo theo workers o of o theo benefit thereunder.oIfotheocontractoisofoundotoobeonotogenuineobutoa mereocamouflage,otheoso-calledocontractolabourowillohaveotoobeAPURVA treatedoasoemployeesoofotheoprincipaloemployerowhooshallobe directedotooregulariseotheoservicesoofotheocontractolabouroinothe concernedoestablishmentosubjectotootheoconditionsoasomayobe specified o byo it o foro that o purposeo in o theo light o of o parao 6 hereunder.

(6)oIfotheocontractoisofoundotoobeogenuineoandoprohibition notificationounderoSectiono10(1)oofotheoCLRAoActoinorespectoof the o concerned o establishment o has o been o issued o by o the appropriateoGovernment,oprohibitingoemploymentoofocontract labouro in o anyo process, o operationo oro other o worko of o any establishmentoandowhereoinosuchoprocess,ooperationoofoother workoofotheoestablishmentotheoprincipaloemployerointendsoto employoregularoworkmenoheoshallogiveopreferenceotoothe erstwhileocontractolabour,oifootherwiseofoundosuitableoand,oif necessary,obyorelaxingotheoconditionoasotoomaximumoage appropriatelyotakingointooconsiderationotheoageoofotheoworkers atotheotimeoofotheiroinitialoemploymentobyotheocontractoroand alsoorelaxingotheoconditionoasotooacademicoqualificationsoother thanotechnicaloqualifications."

¶13Stillofurther,otheoeffectoofonon-registrationoofocontractorounder theo1970oActowasoconsideredobyoaoDivisionoBenchoofothisoCourtoin "BalwinderoSinghov.oPunjaboStateoElectricityoBoard",o2011(4)oS.C.T.o231, whereinoitowasoobservedoasounder:- "6.oTheoabsenceoofoanyoregistrationoofotheolabourocontractor underotheoprovisionsoofotheoAct,oinoouroconsideredoview,owill not o alter o theo situation.o The o same o may o make o theo labour contractoroliableoforopenaloandootheroactionocontemplatedoby theoprovisionsoofotheoAct.oTheoabsenceoofoanyosuchoregistration ofotheolabourocontractorocannotoobliterateotheoengagementoof workmenobyotheocontractor;oneitherotheosaidofactocanoalterothe statusoofotheoworkmenotoooneooforegularoemployeesounderothe principaloemployer…"

¶14Inoviewoofotheoaforesaidolegaloposition,omereonon-registration underotheo1970oActoisoofonooconsequenceoandoonlyoonothatobasis,oitocannotobe heldothatocontractoexecutedobetweenotheoDepartmentoandotheocontractorowasoa shamoandoaocamouflage,omoreosoowhenotheopetitionerohasofailedotooproduce anyonotificationounderoSectiono10oofotheo1970oAct,oprohibitingotheolabour contractoinotheoestablishmentooforespondent-Department.

¶15Asoregardsotheosubmissionoofopetitionerothatohisoservicesohave beenoterminatedoinoviolationoofotheoprovisionsoofotheo1947oActoisoconcerned, it o is o observed o that o the o petitioner o was o employed o through o different placement/outsourcingoagencies,oregardingowhichoaofurtherofindingohasobeen returnedobyotheoTribunalothatopetitionerohadonotocompletedomoreothano240 daysoofoworkowithotheorespondent-Departmentothroughotheocontractor,oand accordingly,othereowasonooviolationoofotheoprovisionsoofoSectiono25-Foofothe 1947oAct.oItohasocomeoonorecordothatotheopetitionerowasorelievedofromohis dutyoonlyoafterocompletionoofotheocontractoofotheooutsourcingoagency,oi.e. MillenniumoManpoweroAgencyo(respondentoNo.5).

¶16Further,oasoregardsotheopleaoofopetitioneroregardingoviolationoof Sectionso25-Goando25-Hoofotheo1947oActoisoconcerned,oitoisoobservedothat petitionerohadofailedotooleadoanyoevidenceotooshowothatowhichojunior employeeotoohimowasoretainedoinoserviceoandowhichoemployeeowasofreshly recruitedotootheopostoafteroterminationoofohisoservices.oTheodetailsoofosuch personsowereonotoprovidedobyotheopetitioneroandoinotheoabsenceoofomaterial particularsoandotheorelevantoevidence,onoofindingocouldohaveobeenoreturned byotheoTribunalobelowothatothereowasoviolationoofoSectionso25-Goando25-Hoof theo1947oAct.

¶17Further,otheoparametersoforoexerciseoofojurisdictionobyotheoHigh CourtounderoArticle o226o ofotheoConstitutionoofoIndia,oinocasesoinvolving challengeotootheoawardopassedobyotheoLabouroCourt/IndustrialoTribunaloand ordersopassedobyootherojudicialoandoquasi-judicialobodies,oareowellodefined.oA writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior Courts or Tribunals. A writ can also be issued where in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it, the Court or the Tribunal acts illegally or improperly, i.e. it decides a question without giving an opportunity to be heard to the party affected by the order or where the procedure adopted by it is opposed to the principles of natural justice. However, it must be remembered that the jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and not appellate one. This necessarily means that the finding of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal, as a result of the appreciation of evidence, cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings except when the judgment, order or award suffers from an error of law apparent on the face of the record. This is the abstract statement of law, but the vexed question is as to what is an error of law apparent on the face of the record and in what circumstances a finding of fact recorded by an inferior Court or Tribunal or a quasi-judicial authority can be corrected. Broadly speaking, an error of law is one which can be discovered on a bare reading of the judgment, order or award under challenge along with the documents which have been relied upon by the inferior Court, Tribunal or quasi-judicial authority. An error, the discovery of which is possible only after a detailed scrutiny of the evidence produced by the parties and lengthy debate at the bar cannot be regarded as an error of law for the purpose of a writ of certiorari. A finding of fact recorded by an inferior Court or Tribunal can be corrected only if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the Court or the Tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence and the same has influenced the impugned finding. Similarly, a finding of fact based on no evidence would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. However, sufficiency or adequacy of the evidence relied upon by the inferior Court or Tribunal or the quasi-judicial authority cannot be gone into by the High Court while considering the prayer for issue of a writ of certiorari. Likewise, the mere, possibility of forming a different opinion on re-appreciation of evidence by the parties is not sufficient for issue of a writ of certiorario"Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan and others, AIR 1964 Supreme Court 477"; "Shaikh Mahammad Umarsaheb v. Kadalaskar Hasham Karimsab and others, AIR 1970 Supreme Court 61"; "Jitendra Singh Rathor v. Sh. Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Ltd. and another, AIR 1984 Supreme Court 976"; "R.S. Saini v. State of Punjab and others, 1999(4) RCR (Civil) 253 (SC) : J.T. 1999(6) S.C. 507"o and "Mohd. Shahnawaz Akhtar and another v. Ist A.D.J. Varanasi and others, J.T. 2002(8) S.C. 69". .@. onsiderin#otheototalityoofocircumstancesoinovie-oofotheole#al principlesoindicatedoa5ove,o,oamoofotheoconsideredovie-othatothereoisonooscope foroanyointerferenceo-ithotheofindin#s*A-ardorenderedo5yolearnedo6ri5unal 5elo-Goresultantly,otheoinstantopetitionofailsoandotheosameoisodismissed. .A. Allopendin#oapplication1s4,oifoany,oshalloalsoostandoclosed. (14 oD!$!)*!+,o2023 o2HAR1HoBUNGER3 Apur%a oooooooooooJUDGE ..o?hetherospeakin#*reasoned : Jes*%o &.o?hetheroreporta5le : Jes*%o