- (1.) The moot question that has cropped up for consideration in this appeal is of great import in the realm of industrial adjudication, if not touching on a larger issue of socio-economic dimension. Much of what is projected and argued as lying at the root of the problem originates from an effort to disown the employment of some workmen who figured as respondents nos. 3 to 7 in this appeal.
(2.) In order to appreciate the ramification of the different issues involved in it a brief resume of the facts is necessary. The appellant is a government Company - a public sector undertaking. It claims that the respondents nos. 3 to 7 are not their employees but employees of a contractor who had been engaged by the appellant for providing certain security services at their staff quarters. As a result of the contract between the appellant and the said contractor these workmen were deployed by the contractor.
(3.) Earlier the respondent no. 3 filed a writ petition before this Court claiming absorption. The matter was sent back to the appellant for consideration of his representation and the appellant declined to absorb him. Subsequently he moved another writ petition to which the appellant was not a party.;