11. Shri Dasgupta, the learned Senior Counsel has submitted that in fact an application under Section 33A of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 was filed not to change the service conditions. However, in the terms of the settlement, the application was withdrawn which was done as the part of the settlement itself and thereafter, the Award was passed. The learned Senior Counsel had also referred to Section 25 H of the Act of 1947 which relates to Re-employment of retrenched workmen. He submits that the petitioners should be given the benefit of such provision of law. He further submits that the definition of “Employer” appearing in Section 2 (g) of the Act of 1947 is similar to such definition of “Principal Employer” appearing in Section 2 (g) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. It is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that when there is no material difference in the expression “Employer” under the Act of 1947 and “Principal Employer” under the Act of 1970, the provisions of Section 25 H of the Act of 1947 should also apply to the contract labourers. By referring to the prayer, it is submitted by the petitioners that as on today, the numbers which had existed earlier had substantially reduced and therefore, a direction may be given that as an when a new contractor is engaged, the cases of the petitioners may be directed to be considered for engagement and in such case, a fair wages should also be directed to be given to the petitioner.
