M.M. Kumar, J. - (1.) THE instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the judgment dated 6.5.2011 (P -10) rendered by the Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for brevity, 'the Tribunal') holding that the original applicant -respondent Nos. 1 and 2, who had filed OA No. 655 -CH of 2010, were in fact employees of the petitioners and the petitioners were asked to consider them as regular employees at par with other employees and then to release all service benefits such as salary, leave etc. Before passing the aforesaid direction, in para 7 the Tribunal recorded the finding on the basis of the material placed before it, which reads as under: 7. The following facts can safely be culled out from the above discussion: (a) The respondents have not produced any documentation to prove the averment that the relevant job had been outsourced by the CPWD. (b) There is not even an averment by the respondents that the job had been outsourced to the contractor, licensed in terms of the The Contractor Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970. (c) The documentation (Annexures A -1 and A -6) describes the status of the applicants as CPWD employees. (d) It was initially vide order dated 13.12.2010 that a learned Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal had directed the respondents "to place on record relevant documents showing that the respondents have outsourced the services of Group 'D' through contractor including the services of the applicants." That order was reiterated on 4.2.2011, 4.4.2011 and 6.4.2011. However, no such record (except the attendance record and two payment receipts) ever came to be provided. These factors are adequate enough to outweigh receipts (two in number) and also the attendance register entries which have been held to be a manipulated affairs.
(2.) MR . Ashwinie Kumar Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on numerous documents to show that the original applicant -respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were not the employees of the CPWD but they were outsourced through the contractor. According to the learned counsel the contractor has supplied the human -resource including the original applicant respondent Nos. 1 and 2. In support of his claim, learned counsel has placed reliance on various contracts, which have been placed on record of this Court as additional evidence (Annexures P -12 to P -18). In respect of the original applicant -respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Mr. Bansal has also placed reliance on the receipts (P -6 Colly) showing payment made to them. Mr. Amarjit Singh, learned counsel for the original applicant -respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has, however, argued that the Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding holding the original applicant -respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to be employees of the CPWD and have then issued direction to the petitioners to treat them as their regular employees. The evidence now placed on record is belated.
(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view various documents now placed on record by the petitioners we are of the view that the remedy of the petitioners is to go back to the Tribunal and request for review of the impugned order because this Court does not have the benefit of appreciating various documents by the Tribunal which have now been placed on record. Therefore, we relegate the petitioners to the remedy of review, which may be availed, if so advised. If any such application is filed, the Tribunal shall dispose of the same in accordance with law.;