that neither the issue in respect of licence of the contractor and of the company as principal employer under the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act was pleaded by the workman nor any question in cross-examination was made to the management witnesses. When the issue itself was not raised by the workman and no opportunity of meeting the issue was ever given to the management in this regard, no adverse finding could have been given by the Tribunal against the management on this score. It is true that the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act is a beneficial piece of legislation and it should be given widest possible meaning. However, it is equally true that a tribunal may draw adverse inference against the Management in case of nonregistration of principal employer or non-licensing of the labour contractor, but for drawing such adverse inference, there has to be specific pleading in the written statement of the workman. In absence of any written pleading and in absence of any crossexamination of the witnesses of the management in this regard, the finding of the Tribunal deeming the workman, a contractor labour, as having become the employee of the principal employer, is erroneous in law.
