C.M. Nos. 4738-4740 of 2010 and 1 LPA No. 1568 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 22.02.2011 C.M. Nos. 4738-4740 of 2010 and LPA No. 1568 of 2010 Steel Yard Workers Union ......APPELLANT VERSUS The Managing Director, PSIEC Ltd. and others ….. RESPONDENTS C.M. Nos. 4743-4745 of 2010 and LPA No. 1570 of 2010 Steel Yard Workers Union ......APPELLANT VERSUS The Managing Director, PSIEC Ltd. and others ….. RESPONDENTS CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Ms. Shika Sharma, Advocate, for Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. *** RANJAN GOGOI, CJ (Oral) C.M. Nos. 4738 and 4743 of 2010 Permission to file the appeals is granted. C.Ms. stand disposed of. C.M. Nos. 4739, 4740, 4744, 4745 of 2010 Delay in filing and refiling the appeals is condoned. C.Ms. stand disposed of. LPA Nos. 1568 and 1570 of 2010 Both the appeals are directed against a common order dated 27.07.2009 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing C.M. Nos. 4738-4740 of 2010 and 2 LPA No. 1568 of 2010 CWP No. 13822 of 1998 and CWP No. 13957 of 1998. Two writ petitions were filed against the common Award dated 18.01.1998 passed by the Industrial Tribunal Punjab, Chandigarh by which the reference made to the Labour Court was answered against the workman. Two sets of workmen were involved in the industrial adjudication carried out by the learned Labour Court. The first set of workmen were the contractor employees who were engaged in the establishment of the respondent-Management. The said employees were retrenched by the contractors. In the second reference, the workmen involved were engaged by the principal employer and were terminated. As they had not completed 240 days of continuous employment, the learned Labour Court took a view that such termination did not amount to retrenchment within the meaning of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Aggrieved by the aforesaid common Award, both the sets of workmen had approached this Court by means of two writ petitions which having been dismissed, the two appeals in question have been filed. Insofar as the contractor employees are concerned, the learned Single Judge took the view that the termination by the contractor would not amount to termination by the principal employer unless there is evidence to show that the contract employment was a sham or pretence. No such material was brought before the Labour Court. The learned Single Judge, therefore, took the view that the contractor employees were entitled only to a consideration of their cases, for regular employment with the principal employer depending upon the availability of the vacancies. In doing so, the learned Single Judge took note of the decision of the Apex Court in Steel Authority of India Limited vs. National Engineer Water Front Workers, AIR 2001 SC 3527. C.M. Nos. 4738-4740 of 2010 and 3 LPA No. 1568 of 2010 Insofar as the other set of employees is concerned, the learned Single Judge, on a consideration of the Award passed by the Labour Court, came to the conclusion that the finding that such employees had not completed 240 days or more of continuous service is a finding of fact and no material had been laid before the Labour Court to enable any contrary conclusion to be reached. According to us, both the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge while disposing of the two writ petitions are unassailable in law. The rights of a contractor employee will have to be governed by the law laid down by the Apex Court in Steel Authority of India Limited (supra), under which there is no right of automatic absorption in service under the principal employer. Insofar as the other set of employees is concerned, the findings recorded are pure findings of fact. Interference with the said findings in a intra Court appeal will not be justified in the absence of any contrary facts. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in these appeals to warrant admission of the same. The appeals, consequently, are dismissed. No costs. ( RANJAN GOGOI ) CHIEF JUSTICE ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE February 22, 2011 pj C.M. Nos. 4738-4740 of 2010 and 4 LPA No. 1568 of 2010