Writ interference with industrial tribunal findings is limited; substance over form determined workmen's status as principal employer employees.

In writ jurisdiction, an Industrial Tribunal's evidence-based findings could be disturbed only for perversity or patent illegality, so the High Court was not justified in re-appreciating the evidence or substituting its own view. On the merits, the Tribunal found a master-servant relationship: no genuine contractor was shown, the principal employer supervised and allotted work, exercised disciplinary control, and paid wages directly. Those findings justified lifting the veil and treating the workmen as employees of the principal employer. The reference, though inelegantly framed, had to be read with the pleadings and evidence, and was not confined to a barred claim for regularization of contract labour. The Tribunal's award was restored and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether interference with the Industrial Tribunal's award was justified under writ jurisdiction; whether the workmen were employees of the principal employer rather than contract labour so as to be entitled to the benefits flowing from that status; and whether the reference was beyond scope because it referred to regularization of contractual workers.

Analysis: The award of the Industrial Tribunal was based on evidence and disclosed neither perversity nor patent illegality. The High Court in writ jurisdiction could interfere only on limited grounds, and it was not justified in re-appreciating the evidence or substituting its own view on facts. On the merits, the real controversy was the nature of the employment relationship. The Tribunal had found, on material before it, that there was a master-servant relationship, no genuine contractor was shown, the principal employer supervised and allotted work, disciplinary control was exercised by it, and wages were paid directly by it. In such circumstances, the veil could be lifted to determine the true nature of engagement. The plea that regularization of contract labour was barred did not apply, because the foundational finding was that the workmen were in substance employees of the principal employer. The reference, though inelegantly worded, had to be read with the pleadings and evidence, which showed that the core dispute was the status of the workmen and not a narrow claim for regularization simpliciter.

Conclusion: The interference by the Single Judge was unwarranted, the Tribunal's award was properly restored, and the challenge by the appellant failed.

Final Conclusion: The status of the workmen as employees of the principal employer having been upheld, the consequential relief claimed by them survived, and the appeal did not merit interference.

Ratio Decidendi: In writ proceedings, findings of an industrial tribunal based on evidence can be interfered with only for perversity or patent illegality, and where the true nature of engagement shows that contract labour was in substance employed as the principal employer's own workmen, the court may lift the veil and grant the benefits flowing from that relationship.

---