keeping, clearing vegetation inside and outside the terminal are being carried out by the contractors. It is also noted that the respondents 2, 4, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 20 and 21 are still working as contractual workmen of a private contractor in the said terminal whenever the need arises. Further, the acquisition of lands for CPCL expansion or any new project is under the proposal. Therefore, as on date, the respondents 2 to 22 are working only under the contractor according to the Commissioner's report but, not under the appellant. Ironically, on seeing the award passed by the 1st respondent, without any documentary proof on either side, the respondents 2 to 22 were declared as workers. Besides, no oral or documentary evidence is produced to substantial their claims that these workers are directly employed or paid by the Appellant Corporation. Therefore, there is no relationship of master and servant established. Hence, their claim cannot be accepted. It is not in dispute that the respondents 2 to 22 are working in the said company from 11.05.1994 onwards, at that time, when there was no IBP Land Affected Persons Society, however as per the contention of appellant company, they were engaged through the contractors and not directly recruited. It is also admitted fact that many of the workers' lands were taken for appellant's company project and now they have become landless persons. Hence, the respondents 2 to 22 claiming permanent status, which was refused by appellant company squarely attracts the industrial dispute. But, the 1st respondent by issuing the impugned order dated 22.10.2002 acted beyond its jurisdiction and the same was wrongly confirmed by Hon'ble Single Judge, hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside accordingly it is set aside. Therefore, the right forum to decide issue between the parties is Industrial Tribunal, not the 1st respondent. Both parties are directed to approach Industrial Dispute Tribunal for appropriate relief for fresh disposal.
