PRANAB KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY, J. - (1.) The petitioner-company herein, has challenged the validity and/or legality of the award, dated February 20, 1998, passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Asansol. On a reference made to it by the Central Government by an Order No.L-22012/299/96-1 R (C-II), dated March 27, 1996 to adjudicate the following dispute: "Whether the demand of the union for departmentalisation of services of Sri Brijnandan Kumar Rani and 119 other workmen (as per list enclosed) of Sk. Salim contractor in P.K. Unit of Lachipur Colliery under Kajora Area of E.C.L, P.O. Kajorogram, District Burdwan (W.B.), is justified? If not, what relief the workmen are entitled to ?"
(2.) The operative portion of the award, dated February 20, 1998, reads as follows: "8. These materials placed by the union are in effect challenged and show that the contractor named Salim was engaged in carrying certain underground level works like cutting stone drifts etc. The prohibition declared under Notification No. 2063, dated June 21, 1988, of the Central Government is applicable to such works. The materials placed by the union are also sufficient to show that the concerned workmen had been employed by the contractor in carrying out such works during the period from May, 1992 up to the end of 1993. The legal effect of employment of contract labour system has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent decision in Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union, AIR 1997 SC 645 : 1997 (9) SCC 377 : 1997-I-LLJ-1113. The decision says as follows: "Abolition of contract labour system ensures right to the workmen for regularisation of them as employees in the establishment in which they were hitherto working as contract labour through the contractor. The contractor stands removed from the regulations under the Act and direct relationship of 'employer and employees' is created between the principal employee and the workmen." "In view of this legal position, the concerned workmen have the deemed status of employees of the management. Their physical and forcible removal from their employment by the Contractor is accordingly illegal and is of no legal consequence at all. The deemed status of employees of the management acquired by the concerned workmen still continues. "9. In the result it is declared that all the concerned workmen have the deemed status of being employees of the management and they are entitled to all the benefits flowing out of such status. Award accordingly."
(3.) It would appear from the said award that the defence of the petitioner-company was struck out by the Tribunal under Order 11, Rule 21 of C.P.C., due to deliberate suppression of documents by the management as has been recorded by the learned Tribunal in its order, dated June 24, 1997. The relevant portion of the award in that context is reproduced herein below: "Therefore, deliberate suppression of documents by the management warranted application of the provision under the Order 11, Rule 21 of the Civil Procedure Code. Accordingly, under order, dated June 24, 1997, the management was debarred from placing their case and related materials on application of the provisions provided in Order 11, Rule 21 of Cr. P.C. Because of the provisions under Section 11 (3)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Tribunal is competent to pass appropriate orders in such matters.";