1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 134 OF 2010 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 114 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4814 OF 2009 The General Manager (P&A), Hindustan Petroleum ) Corporation Ltd. ).. Applicant versus The General Secretary, General Employees ) Association and others ).. Respondents Mr. J.P. Cama a/w Mr.M.D.Siodia i/b M/s.Rustomji & Ginwala for the Applicant. Mr. R.D. Bhat a/w Ms.Ranjana Todankar for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. AND S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 28TH JUNE 2010 P.C. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties on the question of interim stay of the judgment of the learned Single Judge by which the learned Single Judge has confirmed the Award of the Industrial Tribunal holding that the contract labour system in the Appellants’ organization is a sham arrangement because (i) the management controls and supervises the work of the workmen; (ii) the workers have been working for a very long period in the establishment of the Appellant; it can be said that they are integrated in the establishment of the Appellant; (iii) though the 2 responsibility is cast upon the Contractors to make payment of wages, provident fund contribution, etc., the entire payments are overseen by the Appellant-Management; (iv) inspite of change of Contractors, neither the workmen were replaced nor fresh appointments were made and (v) when the Respondent employees started working with the Appellant, the Contractors did not have the necessary licenses under the Contract Labour (Abolition & Regulation) Act, 1970. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge did not apply the correct test. It is further submitted that even if the contract labour system stands abolished, the employees of the Contractors do not automatically become the employees of the principal employer. It is further submitted that the work being done by the employees is not related to the main activity of the principal employer. The work is in the nature of house keeping, horticulture, grass cutting, repair and cleaning of drainage, repair and cleaning of roads, etc. They are not skilled jobs. 3. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent employees has supported the order of the learned Single Judge and the Award of the Industrial Tribunal. The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent employees submitted that no stay was granted to the Award as noted in the judgment under Appeal. 3 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, however, submits that although there was no formal stay against the operation and implementation of the Award, the status quo was operating and, therefore, the Award under challenge has not yet been implemented. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent employees submitted that if the Award of the Industrial Tribunal is implemented, the Respondent employees are likely to get three to four times the wages they are being paid presently. 6. The learned Counsel for the Appellant disputes the above statement and submits that he has no specific instructions on this issue. 7. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case, interests of justice would be served if there is limited stay granted against implementation of the Award of the Industrial Tribunal to the extent that during the pendency of the Letters Patent Appeal, the Appellant shall not terminate the services of the Respondent employees and shall pay the Respondent employees double the presently monthly wages. 8. As regards the grievance being made on behalf of the Respondent employees that they are not being paid wages for the last two months, if there is any substance in this grievance, the Appellant shall ensure 4 that the Respondent employees are paid their wages. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant states that the Appellant will direct the Contractors to pay such arrears, if any, within fifteen days from today. 9. We accordingly direct that during the pendency of the Letters Patent Appeal, the Appellant shall not terminate the services of the Respondent employees and shall pay double the amount of present monthly wages to the Respondent employees with effect from 1st July 2010. It is clarified that these interim directions shall be implemented in respect of only those employees whose names are given in the list of workmen at Exhibit “A” to the Letters Patent Appeal at page 32 of the compilation. 10. Civil Application is accordingly disposed of. CHIEF JUSTICE S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.