Sengupta, J. - (1.) This application is directed against an award dated 28.10.98, passed by the Learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Calcutta in reference No. 1 of 1994. Before the Tribunal the petitioner herein at the time of hearing and passing of the award was not present. In its absence the award was passed which is one of the complaints of the writ petitioner while challenging the impugned award. Now, it is the turn of the respondents here to remain absent in the hearing of this writ petition though affidavit-in-opposition has been filed. The award was passed while deciding the following disputes or issues raised before the Learned Tribunal : "Whether the action of the management of O.N.G.C. to engage Shri Sambhu Mondal, a sweeping and cleaning worker as contractor and engagement of other sweeping and cleaning workers (as per list attached) under M/s. Mondal Enterprises in the establishment is justified or not ? If not, to what relief these workmen are entitled"? The number of the workmen who were said to have been engaged by the contractor were 9 (nine). From the documents annexed to the writ petition, it apparently appears that one M/s. Mondal Enterprises, being a sole proprietorship firm of one Sri Sambhu Mondal, by and under a written agreement from year to year was engaged for cleaning and sweeping of the office of the writ petitioner. There were several agreements between the parties aforesaid. In the writ petition, three of such agreements have been annexed. From the documents annexed to the writ petition, it appears that said M/s. Mondal Enterprises duly got its establishment registered and obtained trade licence from the Municipal Corporation. From the document it is clear that the engagement was on the basis of the contract and the aforesaid workmen were never engaged by the wit petitioner directly and they worked through the aforesaid contractor.
(2.) On the aforesaid factual background, the said dispute was raised claiming that the workmen are to be absorbed directly under the employ of the writ petitioner by abolishing the contract labour. It was also claimed that engagement of the aforesaid workmen was really made by the writ petitioner directly. However, this was done under the camouflage of the agreement and if the contract veil is lifted then real transaction will be apparent.
(3.) The writ petitioner contested by filing written representation. However, at the time of hearing it was not present. Mr. Ghosh, Ld. counsel appearing for the writ petitioner/company, submits that the findings of the learned Tribunal as to the existence of the contract being a sham and camouflage transaction is devoid of any merit as there is no consideration of the relevant contemporaneous documents, namely, the agreements, the tender notice and the trade licence issued by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. If those documents were considered by the Tribunal, it would have reached a different findings altogether. He further submits without any evidence so to say, it was not proper for the Tribunal to hold that the agreements were sham transaction and there was a master and servant relationship between the writ petitioner and the aforesaid workmen.;