Gujarat High Court
Kalptaru Projects International ... vs State Of Gujarat on 26 March, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12023/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12023 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14291 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14245 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
YES
==========================================================
KALPTARU PROJECTS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
LD.SR.ADV.MR.MIHIR JOSHI WITH MRKEYUR GANDHI WITH
MR NISARG DESAI WITH MR PRAVALIKHA BATTHINI FOR GANDHI LAW
ASSOCIATES(12275) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS SURBHI BHATI, ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s)
No. 1
MR AMRESH N PATEL(2277) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4,5,6,7,8,9
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 26/03/2025
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
1. While dictating the judgment, this court found that the issue in the Special Civil Application No.14245 of 2024 is different therefore, the said matter is de-tagged from the other two petitions being Special Civil Application No.12023 of 2024 and Special Civil Application No.14291 of 2024.
Page 1 of 58 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 02 21:20:26 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12023/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2025 undefined
2. Since the issue raised in Special Civil Application No.12023 of 2024 and Special Civil Application No.14291 of 2024 are similar, they are being decided by a common judgment. The facts of Special Civil Application No.12023 of 2024 are taken for the purpose of adjudication.
3. Present petition is filed challenging the order passed by the respondent No.1 i.e. Commissioner of Labour, Gandhinagar in conciliation case No.103 of 2023 and conciliation case No.97 of 2023 dated 18.05.2024 and 24.05.2024 respectively, referring the demand declaring contractual employees are employees of petitioner company and wage revision for the workers working under various contractors being respondent Nos.3 to 9 to the industrial Tribunal, Ahemdabad which was numbered as Reference (IT) Nos.46 of 2024 and 49 of 2023, through respondent No.2-Union.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner company is the part of Kalpataru group, which is engaged in power transmission and distribution, building and factories, water supply and irrigation, railways, oil and gas pipelines, urban mobility (flyover and metro railway,highways and airports). Respond No.2 Union, who has raised demands on behalf of contractual workers and as per the claim made by the petitioner the said union is not recognized union representing the cause of contractual workers. Respondent Nos. 3 to 9 are contractors of petitioner company, who supplies contract workers for various work.
Page 2 of 58 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 02 21:20:26 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12023/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2025 undefined 4.1. It is the case of the petitioner that State Government has also issued certificate dated 03.10.2023 of the registration of the petitioner company under section 7 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970. The dispute raised before the learned conciliation officers pertains to the plant situated at sector 28 Gandhinagar wherein the petitioner has employed approximately 1000 contractual labourers in its plant at Gandhinagar through various contractors including the respondent contractor herein. For the purpose of the wage allowances and other benefits of the said contract laborers, the contractors entered into long-term settlement with the contract labourers.
4.2. It is the case of the petitioner that Respondent No.2 has earlier raised similar demands for contractual workers which were admitted in conciliation proceedings being IDC case No.157 of 2021 and the learned Assistant Labour Commissioner by way of an order dated 18.06.2022 disposed of the disputes since the settlement between the contract workers and AGMS union as well as Gujarat Shramik Seva Sangh were in existence. Subsequently, the Respondent No.2 Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha ('the GMS' referred hereinafter) has raised demand again by charter of demand dated 15.03.2023 pertaining to contract being a sham and paper arrangement as well as increase in Page 3 of 58 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 02 21:20:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12023/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2025 undefined basic wages and various allowances such as fixed dearness allowance, variable dearness allowance, convenience allowance, washing allowance, shift allowance, attendance allowance, education allowance, etc. of the contract workers.
4.3. The aforesaid demands were taken into conciliation proceedings being a conciliation case No.103 of 2023 by assistant labour commissioner wherein the petitioner company has appeared and filed the reply on 05.02.2024 submitting that there is no employer- employee relationship between the workers, who raised the demand and the petitioner company since they are employees of contractors. It is further submitted that contractors are issued valid license for the purpose of employing these contract workers. It is stated in the reply that demand of contract being sham and paper arrangement in the instance of respondent-union is completely illegal, unjustified and de-horse the settlement as executed previously.
4.4. It is submitted that contractors having an independent identity, having separate PF numbers, ESI registration, GST registration and the contribution towards PF and ESI is deducted by these contractors and deposited before the respective statutory authorities. The meeting of the conciliation was held before the learned Conciliation Officer on 29.01.2024, 15.02.2024, 12.03 2024.
Page 4 of 58 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 02 21:20:26 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12023/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2025 undefined 4.5. It is a case of the petitioner that union AGMS had also raised demand for revision in basic wages and allowances for the contract workers affiliated with the union was referred for conciliation being a conciliation case number 83 of 2023, which was referred for the adjudication to Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad/Kalol being a Reference (IT) No.20 of 2024. However, subsequently the settlement was arrived between the Akhil Gujarat Mazdoor Sangh ('the AGMS' referred hereinafter) union and the respondent Nos.3 to 9 and the said Reference has been withdrawn by the union. Learned labour commissioner vide order dated 18.05.2024 referred the alleged industrial dispute to the learned Tribunal Ahmedabad/Kalol containing the all demands raised by the union, which is impugned before this court. In the said reference, the respondent No.2-Union has filed a statement of claim on 09.07.2024 against the petitioner and the contractors in support of the alleged demands. The union has also filed an application on 09.07.2024 seeking interim relief only against the petitioner company without joining the respondent Nos.3 to 9 contractors in the nature of part I award for its demand No.1 seeking an amount of Rs.12,000 as an interim relief with effect from 01.04.2023 along with its statement of claim. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.05.2024 referring the dispute to the learned Tribunal, which is subject matter of consideration before this court.
Page 5 of 58 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 02 21:20:26 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12023/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2025 undefined
5. Heard the learned senior advocate Mr.Mihir Joshi with learned advocate Mr.Keyur Gandhi with learned advocate Mr.Nisarg Desai, with learned advocate Ms.Pravalikha Batthini for Gandhi Law Associates, learned advocate Mr. Amresh Patel for the respondent No.2, learned AGP Ms.Surbhi Bhati for the State and though notice is served to the respondent contractors, but none appears for them.
6. Learned senior advocate Mr.Joshi submits before the court that Section 10(1) of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 ('the I.D.Act' referred hereinafter) enables the appropriate government to refer the dispute or any matter connected with the labour court or industrial tribunal for adjudication if it is of the opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended. Learned senior advocate Mr.Joshi submits that an industrial dispute is defined under Section 2K of the I.D.Act to mean inter alia a dispute between employers and workmen.
6.1. It is further submitted by learned senior advocate Mr.Joshi that though impugned order records that such opinion has been formed by an Appropriate Government, the dispute referred being a mechanical repetition of the demand raised by the respondent- union clearly established that no independent satisfaction has been arrived by Appropriate Government after due consideration of the responses of the petitioner to such demand. The failure report made by the conciliation officer does not indicate Page 6 of 58 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 02 21:20:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12023/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2025 undefined consideration of relevant facts, which would assist the Appropriate Government for forming the necessary opinion.
6.2. It is further submitted by learned senior advocate Mr. Joshi that dispute Nos. 1 and 2 as to whether employees of the contractors are entitled to equivalent wages as that of the workmen of the petitioner company since the contracts were sham and bogus, the Appropriate Government has not taken into consideration while referring the dispute that both the contractors and the petitioners are duly licensed and registered under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act ('the CLRA Act' hereinafter) and no breach of the said act has been alleged at any point of time. Learned senior advocate Mr.Joshi submits that the learned authority has also not considered the settlement, which arrived between the parties accepting by the workmen that they are duly appointed by the contractors therefore, no employer- employee relationship between the petitioner and the employees of members of the union.
6.3. Learned senior advocate Mr.Joshi further submits that settlement dated 11.05.2017 which arrived during the conciliation proceedings under section 12(3) of the I.D.Act through the AGMS for the period between 2016 to 2019. Similar was the settlement dated 28.02.2020 with contractors through AGMS in Reference (IT) No.9 of 2020 for the period between 1.04.2019 to Page 7 of 58 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 02 21:20:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12023/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2025 undefined 31.03.2023. The settlement dated 29.05.2020 with contractors through Gujarat Shramik Seva Sangh ('the GSSS' referred hereinafter) under sections 12(3) and 2 (P) of the I.D.Act for the period between 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2023. Similar is the settlement arrived on 12.03.2024 with the contractors through AGMS for the period between 01.04.2023 and 31.03.2027. Learned senior advocate Mr.Joshi submits that the said settlements were never challenged till date and having obtained the benefits under the settlement, it was not open for the employees to turn down without justifiable reasons and to contend that settlement was not fair. Learned senior advocate Mr.Joshi submits that in absence of challenge to the settlement the demands made by the contract workers in Reference proceedings will amount to probate and reprobate and should therefore, be barred.
6.4. Learned senior advocate Mr.Joshi further submits that respondent union claims membership of 763 workmen of contractors out of which 711 are signatories and have obtained the benefits under the settlement referred herein above and thereafter immediately issued the charter of demands without satisfying that workmen themselves never have raised an issue about the demands with the petitioner.
6.5. Learned senior advocate Mr.Joshi submits that the system of contract labour duly regulated under CLRA and has in effect since long time in view of peculiar Page 8 of 58 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 02 21:20:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12023/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2025 undefined nature of the work being undertaken by the petitioner, settlement have been arrived at between the contractors and their workmen and the impugned order overlooks the fact that such settlements have not been challenged earlier nor even under the impugned order and after substantial, delay in raising the issue of validity of contracts particularly when the same has been accepted by the workmen, it would disrupt industrial peace.
6.6. Learned senior advocate Mr.Joshi submits that while referring dispute Nos.3 to 28 vide a impugned order relating to the wage revision of the workmen of the petitioner, the Appropriate Government has completely erred in assuming without verification that the respondent union represents the workmen of the petitioner company. The list of workmen appended to the statement of claim that the union claims to represent the workmen of contractors and no workmen of the petitioner has raised an industrial dispute nor does the union represent an appreciable number or substantial body of such workmen and therefore, industrial dispute of the nature referred from demand Nos.3 to 28 of the impugned order cannot be said to have arisen at all.
6.7. Learned senior advocate Mr.Joshi further submits that Reference is invalid and defective as the dispute on the premise that contractors sham and bogus was proceeded and in fact it would amount to adjudication Page 9 of 58 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 02 21:20:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12023/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2025 undefined thereof without evidence before the Appropriate Government. Learned senior advocate Mr.Joshi relying on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Tata Iron And Steel Company Limited versus State of Jharkhand, reported in 2014 (1)SSC 536 submits that the terms of reference have to be appropriately worded and cannot be vague. The Reference Order should properly drop dispute between the parties else it is vitiated.
6.8. Learned senior advocate Mr.Joshi submits that since the impugned order is vague and not appropriately worded, it is invalid and therefore, the impugned order referring the dispute to the learned tribunal deserves to be interfered with. It is further submitted by the learned senior advocate Mr.Joshi that learned tribunal is bound by the terms of reference and cannot travel beyond the terms of reference except for ancillary matters. The jurisdiction of learned labour court or learned Industrial Tribunal in industrial dispute is limited to the point specifically referred for its adjudication and the matter incidental thereto and it will not be permissible for the Industrial Tribunal to go beyond the terms of reference.
6.9. Learned senior advocate Mr.Joshi relying on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Bongaigaon Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd vs. Samijuddin Ahmed reported in 2001 (9) SCC 557 and Hochtief Gammon Vs. Industrial Tribunal, Page 10 of 58 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 02 21:20:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12023/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2025 undefined Bhubaneshwar, Orissa And Ors reported in AIR 1964 SC 1746 has submitted that the impugned order presupposes the contracts are sham and bogus, which would restrict this issue from being agitated before the learned Tribunal. Since there is already predetermination of the issue by the respondent No.1- Government that contracts are sham and paper arrangement the question as to whether contract is sham and paper arrangement cannot be gone into by the learned Tribunal. Learned senior advocate Mr.Joshi submits that respondent No.2 by affidavit of modification has stated that they did not wish to press demand number one at this stage reserving its right to raise fresh demand since demand number one is covered by demand number two.
6.10. Learned senior advocate Mr.Joshi submits that what has been stated in support of demand number two in the statement of claim is for declaration of contract sham bogus and paper arrangement and therefore the same may be declared as void and illlegal. Learned senior advocate Mr.Joshi submits that respondent No.2-Union on its own affidavit clearly shows that Reference Order is defective. Learned senior advocate Mr.Joshi submits that composite reference of this nature could not have been made by the Appropriate Government as the dispute of contracts workmen and the petitioners-workmen cannot be referred for adjudication simultaneously Page 11 of 58 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 02 21:20:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12023/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2025 undefined since both the issues are completely distinct and it will prejudice the adjudication before the learned Tribunal.
6.11. Learned senior advocate Mr.Joshi submits that respondent No.2-Union GMS do not represent the workers of company at all. Thus, firstly the representation of respondent No.2-Union on behalf of the workers of the petitioner company has to be ascertained. Learned senior advocate Mr.Joshi submits that section 10 of the I.D.Act 1947 read with Rule 3 of the Industrial Dispute (Gujarat Rules, 1966) wherein an application for Reference of an industrial dispute has to be made to the learned labour court or industrial tribunal accompanied by statement containing, inter alia the nature and cause of the disputes, including any demands made by either party or the other to which exception is taken by opposite party, the total number of workmen employed in undertaking affected, the estimate of the number of workmen affected or likely to be affected by the dispute.
6.12. Learned senior advocate Mr.Joshi submits that neither respondent No.2 nor respondent No.1 has placed on record any such application in support of workmen of the petitioner company. On that ground also, composite reference at the instance of Union of Workmen of the petitioner company is not maintainable. Learned senior advocate Mr.Joshi submits that respondent No.2-Union has also sought an interim relief during pendency of the Reference Page 12 of 58 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 02 21:20:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12023/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2025 undefined proceedings on a presumption that the contracts are sham and bogus, which is not permissible without first adjudication of whether contracts are sham and bogus. If answer to the question as to whether contracts are sham and bogus is in negative, the Reference itself have to be rejected.
6.13. Learned senior advocate Mr.Joshi submits that dispute numbers 3 to 28 also could not have to refer before the learned Tribunal till the contracts are held to be sham and bogus and the workmen are declared as direct employees of the petitioner company no industrial dispute regarding wages and allowances on behalf of the contracts workmen can be raised. The dispute Nos.3 to 8 pertains to rise in the basic wages, allowances, etc. and petitioner company's workers cannot be said to have raised an industrial dispute as the said demands are raised on behalf of the petitioner company's workers, who are not represented by the respondent No.2-Union. Learned senior advocate Mr.Joshi submits that alleged dispute even does not fall within the ambit of apprehended dispute the workers on whose behalf the demands have been raised by the respondent No.2-Union are admittedly contract workers as evident from the list of 763 workers produced along with statement of claim and therefore, there is no existence of employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and the workers on whose behalf the demands are raised and therefore, it Page 13 of 58 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 02 21:20:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12023/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2025 undefined will not amount to industrial dispute as defined under section 2(k) of the I.D.Act.
6.14. Learned senior advocate Mr.Joshi submits that for the permanent workmen of the petitioner the respondent No.2-Union does not represent them at all and there is in fact no dispute qua the workmen of the petitioner. As a matter of fact there is an already existing settlement dated 24.07.2023 with the petitioner-company which is valid till 31.12.2026 and entered into under sections 2(p) and 18(1) with works committee and same has never been terminated. Learned senior advocate Mr.Joshi submits that during the hearing, the list of the seven persons has been provided by the learned advocate for the respondent No.2, who are alleged to be its member and employees of the petitioner company. Learned senior advocate Mr.Joshi submits that the demand raised on behalf of 763 contract workers, whose list has been apprehended at page 176 onwards all of whom are the employees of the respondent contractor, none of them is employee of the petitioner company, seven persons are not named in the list moreover two out of the said seven persons have signed the settlement dated 24.07.2023 and all seven irrespective of signature on the settlement has received the benefits under the settlement as out of 763 workers 711 have entered into the settlement either directly or through their union accepting that they are workmen of the Page 14 of 58 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 02 21:20:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12023/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2025 undefined contractors and have accepted the benefit of the settlement. On that ground also, it cannot be said any industrial dispute arose qua these seven or any permanent workmen of the petitioner at the instance of the respondent No.2-Union. Learned senior advocate Mr.Joshi submits that no industrial dispute arising qua permanent workmen of the petitioner since espousal of cause to raise an industrial dispute has to be by an appreciable or substantial body of workmen as elaborated above and the list of the seven workmen, which are provided during the hearing, have retired and accepted the benefits available under the settlement agreements entered into with the petitioner without any dispute of any kind.
6.15. Learned senior advocate Mr.Joshi submits that respondent union has not established before the State Government that all 763 contractor's workmen listed in its statement of claim are its members and attempted to convey that the demand regarding wages of permanent workmen of the petitioner company was authorized due to purported membership of seven persons, which are not part of 763 is clearly an afterthought and in any case has not been even asserted by the Union earlier or considered by an Appropriate Government while referring the dispute. Learned senior advocate Mr.Joshi submits that a workman in respect of which the employer-employee relationship never existed cannot be subject matter of Page 15 of 58 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 02 21:20:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12023/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2025 undefined dispute between the employers. Learned senior advocate Mr.Joshi further submits that the Order of Reference depends on subjective satisfaction of the opinion of the Government, which cannot be substituted by this court in the jurisdiction while modifying the order of reference. No amendments will lie against the Government for modification since the Reference Order is based on subjective satisfaction of the Government any modification therein will amount to substituting the opinion of Government, which is not permissible.
6.16. Learned senior advocate Mr.Joshi submits that the validity of Reference cannot be gone into by learned Tribunal in view of the Order of Reference already presupposes that contract is sham and bogus and whether the dispute was validly raised could not be gone into so far as regular workmen is concerned since there is already erroneous assumption that there is an existence of industrial dispute between the petitioner and its permanent workmen. Learned senior advocate Mr.Joshi submits that reliance placed by the respondent-Union on additional material is irrelevant and cannot be considered by this court in the petition to justify that the Order of Reference was validly made.
6.17. Learned senior advocate Mr.Joshi relying on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Prabhakar vs. Joint Director Sericulture Page 16 of 58 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 02 21:20:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12023/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2025 undefined Department, reported in 2015 (15) SCC 1 submits that a Reference Order under section 10(1) of the I.D.Act is subject to judicial review if it is shown that the Appropriate Government had no material before it or it has not applied its mind to the material before it or not taken into consideration certain vital facts, which ought to have been taken into consideration. Learned senior advocate Mr.Joshi further submits that opinion of the Government must be held on relevant facts and if challenged it would have to be supported by reasons. Learned senior advocate Mr.Joshi relying on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of 63 Moons Technologies Ltd.
(formerly Known as Financial Technologies India Ltd.) & Ors. Vs. Union Of India & Ors., reported in 2019 (18) SCC 401 submits that the Government's satisfaction must be as to the condition precedent mentioned in the provision as correctly understood in law and must be based on the facts have been gathered by the Government to show that condition precedent exists when the order of the Government is made. The formation of opinion by the Government should reflect intense application of mind with reference to the material available on record. Learned senior advocate Mr.Joshi submits that in the facts of the instant case there was no material before the Government to form subjective satisfaction, the Government has not inquired from the union about representation on behalf of the company's workmen.
Page 17 of 58 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 02 21:20:26 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12023/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2025 undefined The Government while forming its opinion has not taken into account several facts as elaborated herein above and therefore, Order of Reference is defective and the impugned order deserves to be set aside. Learned senior advocate Mr.Joshi submits that respondent-Union has raised similar demands by way of multiple References. The demand raised in Reference (IT) No.49 of 2024 and Reference (IT) No.50 of 2024 wherein the demands raised are similar. Therefore, the said References are challenged before this court by way of caption petitions.
6.18. Learned senior advocate Mr.Joshi submits that respondent no. 2 has not joined the contractors in these other References despite similar demands being raised on behalf of contractors employees. Learned senior advocate Mr.Joshi submits that jurisdiction of the tribunal to deal with industrial dispute is derived solely from the order of reference passed by the Appropriate Government under section 10 of the ID Act. Learned senior advocate Mr.Joshi submits that in above background the impugned order of reference is defective and therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside.
7. Learned AGP Ms.Surbhi Bhati appearing for the State submits that the respondent No.2-Union has filed the charter of demand before the conciliation officer on 18.07.2023 and the conciliation officer has initiated the primary proceedings on 09.10.2023 for settlement of Page 18 of 58 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 02 21:20:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12023/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2025 undefined dispute under section 12(2) of the I.D.Act. After the meeting held between the company and the union respondent No.2 Union has submitted the written justification before the conciliation officer on 11.12.2023 and the petitioner has also submitted the reply to written justification on 05.02.2024. The conciliation officer submitted its failure report under section 12(4) before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Ahmedabad and was further forwarded the same to the Labour Commissioner, Gandhinagar on 20.03.2024. Learned AGP Ms.Surbhi Bhati submits that after considering the failure report submitted the learned Labour Commissioner, Gandhinagar made a Reference of the dispute before the learned Industrial Tribunal under section 10(1) of the I.D.Act on 20.05.2024 and thereafter, the Reference of conciliation officer, Conciliation Case No.103 of 2023 made before the learned Tribunal by exercising the power conferred under section 39 vide its notification dated 18.08.2021. Learned AGP states that while acting under section 12 of the I.D.Act, respondent no.1 is not acting in a judicial or quasi-judicial manner. Once the Charter of Demand is submitted before the conciliation officer, the role of the Conciliation Officer as per section 12 of the I.D.Act that after hearing both the parties and considering the written submissions given by the parties, the Conciliation Officer will make efforts for the settlement of the dispute. In the event when the no settlement arrived between the parties, the Conciliation Officer would submit the report before the learned labour Page 19 of 58 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 02 21:20:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12023/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2025 undefined Court under section 12(4) of the I.D.Act.
7.1. Learned AGP Ms.Surbhi Bhati submits that the respondent no. 2 i.e. Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha has raised dispute by filing Charter of Demand on 18.07.2023 pertaining to the contract being a sham and bogus as well as agreement regarding increasing basic pay and fixed dearness allowances, etc. The Conciliation Officer held the meeting with the workers and the company and on submitting the failure report, the learned labour Commissioner has made a reference under sections 10(1) and 12(5) of the I.D.Act on 20.05.2025.
7.2. Relying on the decision rendered in the case of Telco Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh & Anr Vs. State Of Bihar & Ors., reported in AIR (1989) SC 1565, learned AGP Ms.Bhati submits that, section 10 of the I.D.Act empowers the Appropriate Government to make a Reference before the learned labour Court or Industrial Tribunal and while performing the said function, government cannot delve into the merits of the dispute and take upon itself the task of determination of lis, which would be certainly in excess of the power conferred under section 10 of the I.D.Act. Learned AGP Ms.Surbhi Bhati states that, by exercising the administrative power, no error has been committed by the government authority in referring the dispute to the learned tribunal. Therefore, no interference is required and the petition is required to Page 20 of 58 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 02 21:20:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12023/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2025 undefined be dismissed.
8. Learned advocate Mr.Amresh Patel appearing for the respondent No.2 submits that, the respondent No.1 has passed an order dated 18.05.2024 with proper application of mind and after considering the subjective satisfaction of Appropriate Government in consonance with the provision of the I.D.Act and the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot examine factual dispute in the writ jurisdiction. Learned advocate Mr.Amresh Patel submits that the learned Conciliation Officer, after recording the failure on the part of the parties to reach to a settlement, referred the dispute in exercise of power under section 12(5) of the I.D.Act on the basis of subjective satisfaction and the material produced before the Conciliation Officer at the time of conciliation. Thus, the examination of material, which are produced before the Conciliation Officer after subjective satisfaction cannot be held illegal without application of mind.
8.1. Learned advocate Mr.Amresh Patel submits that, Orders of References are passed in accordance with the provision of I.D.Act and all References involve disputed question of fact which can be determined by taking appropriate evidence by the appropriate authority at an appropriate stage. Challenging the Order of Reference without there being any material on record is nothing but gross abuse of the real jurisdiction.
Page 21 of 58 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 02 21:20:26 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12023/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2025 undefined 8.2. Learned advocate Mr.Amresh Patel further submits that, in Conciliation Case No.103 of 2023, a specific demand was raised by respondent, which was considered by the Appropriate Government and the specific dispute as defined under Section 2(K) of the I.D.Act was in existence and such dispute was referred in Reference in Conciliation Case No.103 of 2023 in Demand No.2 wherein the sham and bogus paper arrangement system, the workmen who are in continuous work of the principal employer are shown as the employees of the contractor, contract is void ab initio and such workers were sought to be treated as a direct and regular employee of the principal employer. The said demand is required adjudication by the learned Industrial Court and therefore, this Court cannot examine the facts that the respondent is able to raise such demand or not. The petitioner company is joined as a party in the Reference due to same being a necessary party against whom the specific demands are raised.
8.3. Learned advocate Mr.Amresh Patel submits that, the earlier settlements are not in consonance with the provisions of the Act 1947, that justness and fairness of the said settlement has never been examined by the competent Court, whereas similar demands were previously raised and no such objections were ever taken by the petitioner company in the earlier proceeding, despite the same the petitioner company Page 22 of 58 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 02 21:20:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12023/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2025 undefined was also one of the signatories of the said settlement. Learned advocate Mr.Amresh Patel submits that, question of legality and validity of settlement could have been raised before the Appropriate Government at the relevant point of time. Demand nos.1 seeks equal benefits at par with permanent employees, whereas the demand no.2 seeks declaration qua direct employment with the petitioner company and demand no.3 to 26 is for all employees irrespective of their status. The right of the union to raise certain demands in accordance with law cannot be called as self- contradictory as the various demands as raised in demand nos.3 to 26 are for all the employees and not only for the employees, who are employed by the petitioner company through sham and bogus paper arrangement system. Learned advocate Mr.Amresh Patel submits that, the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 is enacted to regulate the employment of contract labour in certain establishments and to provide for its abolition in certain circumstances. No workmen are to be engaged for the purpose of the constant, regular, permanent and perennial nature of the work through contract system and creation of such system and engagement through such contractor to such employees, who are in fact working for the petitioner company is nothing but an eyewash and therefore, such eventualities are to be examined by the competent court after taking the evidence and the learned Industrial Court under the Page 23 of 58 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 02 21:20:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12023/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2025 undefined I.D.Act are entitled to clarify rights and dispute after its adjudication.
8.4. Learned advocate Mr.Amresh Patel submits that, petitioner is signatory of such all settlements between the contractors and the union and therefore, the contention about no dispute can be raised against the principal employer is sheer falsehood and petitioner company cannot be permitted to raise such defense, which is waived by the action of the company. Previously the reference order with similar demands were raised for all employees of the company and wherein the company along with other labour contractors and workmen entered into settlement and they had also filed one Exhibit 3 on 28.02.2020. In that background, the justness and fairness of the settlement was not examined by the learned Industrial Tribunal and the Reference (IT) No.9 of 2020 was permitted to be withdrawn in view of the pursis filed below Exhibit 7.
8.5. Learned advocate Mr.Amresh Patel submits that, the company had also communicated vide its communication dated 10.04.2023 knowing fully well that union is raising the demand for the permanent employees of the company as well. The creation a new issue by stating that the demands of wage revisions were raised for the alleged employees of the contractors, who are seeking regularization is a mala- fide and mischievous submissions.
Page 24 of 58 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 02 21:20:26 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12023/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2025 undefined 8.6. Learned advocate Mr.Amresh Patel submits that, in Interim Application it is not required to name each and every party and their addresses and the names in the head of the application and only on the basis of such permissible formatting in the interim application, it cannot be said that the remaining parties of the References are not in the application and relief are sought against the present petitioner only. Learned advocate Mr.Amresh Patel further submits that, demand Nos.1 to 2 as well as demand Nos.3 to 26 are for different class of workmen, who are employed by the principal employer through sham and bogus paper arrangement system. Succeeding demand Nos.1 and 2 will also entitle the benefit of the same demands to be beneficiary of the demand Nos.3 to 26 and other employees, who are the permanent employees of the company will also get the benefit of demand Nos.3 to
26. Therefore, the submission that these demands are self-contradictory is illogical submission.
8.7. Learned advocate Mr.Amresh Patel further submits that, whether contractor's employee engaged by the principal employer and contract arrangement is sham and bogus is to be examined by the learned Tribunal and same cannot be decided by the Appropriate Government while referring the matter and such dispute and allegation cannot be discarded by the learned Commissioner while referring the matter. Learned advocate Mr.Amresh Patel submits that, as Page 25 of 58 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 02 21:20:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12023/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2025 undefined the dispute exists, same was referred for the purpose of adjudication and therefore, this court cannot examine the factual dispute that whether employment of contractor is sham, bogus and paper arrangement system or not.
8.8. Submitting the same, learned advocate Mr.Amresh Patel has pressed to dismiss the petition as no error is committed by the Learned Commissioner in referring the dispute to the Learned Tribunal.
9. Having given thoughtful consideration on the arguments advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties and, material placed, it emerges that, in the few plants at Gandhinagar, including plant situated in sector 28, the contractual labourers has raised the dispute before the Conciliation Officer. The petitioner company has employed more than 1000 contractual employees as stated in petition through the various contractors, including the respondent contractor. Previously also dispute with regard to the wages, allowances and other benefits of the contractual labourers were raised wherein following long term settlement were arrived with the contract labourer from time to time through the respective union:
(a) settlement dated 11.05.2017 with contractors during the conciliation under Section 12(3) of the I.D.Act through one AGMS was arrived in Industrial Dispute Case No.92 of 2016 under Section 12(3) for Page 26 of 58 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 02 21:20:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12023/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2025 undefined the period between 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2019;
(b) settlement dated 28.02.2020 with the contractors through AGMS in Reference No.9 of 2020 for the period between 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2023 wherein as per the clause (36) it was admitted by both the parties i.e. representative of Union and first party i.e. the contractors that all the contract labourers are the employees of the contractors No.2 to 19 and they were never appointed by first party, namely, Kalpatru Power Transmission Limited i.e. the present petitioner neither worked as a direct employee of the petitioner company. It is also clarified in the said clause that the petitioner company was unnecessarily joined and no relief or demand is raised against the present petitioner-company.
(c)Similar was the settlement arrived in IDC Case No.399 of 2019 on 29.05.2020 under Section 12(3) and 2(P) of the I.D.Act for the period between 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2023 with contractors through GSSS wherein also it was agreed in the clause (36) that all the employees are the contractual employees of contractor Nos.2 to 15 and never appointed by the petitioner company and the petitioner company was wrongly joined in the said Reference. Representative of the Union has signed supplement (A) which is annexed with the petition at page 100.
(d) the next settlement was arrived between the Page 27 of 58 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 02 21:20:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12023/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2025 undefined contractors and the Union, namely, AGMS on 12.03.2024 for the period of 01.03.2023 to 31.03.2027 wherein also the clause mentioned in the previous settlement is referred as clause No.37. The petitioner has also signed in the said settlement as a confirming party and name of the signatories, who are representatives of the Union is figured at page 119 of supplement (A).
9.1. Thereafter, the workmen figured in the list annexed with charter of demand join in August 2021 with present union and has raised the dispute which was registered as IDC Case No.157 of 2021 claiming equal treatment at par with the regular employee and to pay regular wages with arrears at the rate of 12%. The Conciliation Officer vide its order dated 18.06.2022 has dismissed the demand on the ground that earlier the settlement is arrived between the contractors and Union namely AGMS and GSSS is in operation upto 31.03.2023 and none of the Union has issued the notice under Section 19(2) of the I.D.Act therefore, no conciliation proceedings can be initiated with new Union.
9.2. It is further observed that as the said settlement is recorded under Section 12(3) and Section 2(P) of the I.D.Act, the same is binding to all Unions including the present Union.
9.3. On refusing the Reference, the present respondent Page 28 of 58 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 02 21:20:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12023/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2025 undefined i.e. GMS has raised demand by issuing notice on 15.03.2023 pertaining the contract being sham and paper arrangement as well as increase in basic wages and various allowances such as fixed dearness allowance, variable dearness allowance, convenience allowance, washing allowance, shift allowance, attendance allowance, education allowance, etc. of the contract workers. It is observed in the said notice that the previous settlement is terminated under Section 19(6) of the I.D.Act and therefore, by issuing two months' notice, claim was made w.e.f. 01.04.2024. The examination of the membership as on 08.09.2023 suggests that there are 743 members in the respondent-Union. The aforesaid demands were taken into conciliation proceedings, which was registered as conciliation case No.103 of 2023 before the learned Assistant Labour Commissioner.
9.4. The petitioner-company has submitted its reply on 05.02.2024 categorically denial the employer- employee relationship and submitted that the workers who raised the demands are employees of contractors and contractors are issued valid license for contractual work for the purpose of employing these contract workers. It is submitted that contractors having independent identity, having separate PF and ESI registration, GST registration and depositing the contribution to the PF and ESI authority. The meetings before the conciliation in the impugned demand were Page 29 of 58 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 02 21:20:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12023/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2025 undefined held on 29.01.2024, 15.02.2024 and 12.03.2024.
9.5. It further emerges from the record that the Union, namely AGMS has also raised demand for revision in basic wages and allowance of the contract workers affiliated with the union was referred for conciliation being a conciliation case number 83 of 2023 and after submitting failure report by conciliation officer, the demands were referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Kalol/Mahesana which was registered as Reference (IT) No.20 of 2024.Thereafter, the settlement arrived between the AGMS Union and respondent Nos.3 to 9, the said Reference was permitted to be withdrawn by the learned labour Court on 01.04.2024.
9.6. List of 763 employees, who are stated to be the Member Of The Union, which is annexed at page 176 appears to be a contractual employees. However, the demand Nos.1 & 2 , which is raised, pertaining to contractual employees and demand Nos.3 to 28 raised for all employees irrespective of their status. The petitioner has informed to the Union vide communication dated 10.04.2023 that for the regular employees, who are not Members of the Union, the respondent-Union does not have any locus to raise the demand. On 12.03.2024 the failure report is submitted by the learned Conciliation Officer to the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Ahmedabad and appendix 'U' annexed with the failure report at page 275 suggests Page 30 of 58 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 02 21:20:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12023/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2025 undefined that the dispute is raised by 743 Members of the Union, who are contractual employee.
9.7. Learned Labour Commissioner by an order dated 18.05.2024 referred the said dispute to the learned Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Kalol) containing all demands raised by Union, which was registered as Reference (IT) No.46 of 2024 and the same is impugned before this Court. The demand which are refer for adjudication is reproduced hereinbelow:
"(1) Whether, on an equitable basis, the original salary and all other allowances and benefits provided to the permanent workers in the company are to be paid, including arrears, to all the workers engaged in the operations for which the artificial contract on paper has been created by the company with effect from date 01.04.2023?
(2) All the workers working in the company for whom the artificial, fake, and misleading contract system has been created on paper is illegal and void from the beginning and considering all the workers as direct and permanent workers of the company, considering the rank, performance, and skills of these workers, should the company pay all the salaries, allowances, benefits, and facilities paid to the permanent workers with 12% interest on the amount of arrears?Page 31 of 58 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 02 21:20:26 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12023/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2025 undefined (3) Basic Salary:- The employees currently working in various levels in the company should be increased by Rs.7500/- every year in the current basic salary from 1- 4-23 and the following increments should be given every year according to the year of employment and whether that amount should be included in the basic salary, PF, gratuity and other benefits?
(4) Dearness Allowance, (5) House Rent, (6) Conveyancing Allowance, (7) Provision of Health Facilities, (8) Washing Allowance, (9) Shift Allowance, (10) Attendants Allowance, (11) Education Allowance, (12) Leave Travel Allowance, (13) Holidays, (14) Bonus, (15) Provision of Interim Relief, (16) Facilities, (17) Travel, (18) Long Service Award, (19) Payment of Compensation for On-Duty Injury, (20) Promotion, (21) Uniform, (22) Loans and Various Facilities, (23) Provision of Various Service Records to Workers Working in the Company, (24) Medical Checkup, (25) Retirement Age Limit, (26) Recognition of Union, (27) Permanentisation, (28) The issue of considering the jobs of workers as consecutive.
9.8. The demands of Reference (IT) No.83 of 2023, which are refer in Special Civil Application No.14291 of 2024 are reproduced hereinbelow:
Page 32 of 58 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 02 21:20:26 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12023/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2025 undefined (1) The workers working in this organization are working as the workers of the company from the date of their first admission in the company. But the company has created bogus and artificial contract system on paper and the company has not given these workers pay scale equivalent to the permanent employees as well as other allowances, PF, CL, SL, PL, Bonus and other benefits as per seniority. The company has changed the names of the contractor parties from the date of their first admission in the company as per the requirement of the company and to create the persons decided by the company as bogus contractors on paper. But the workers are working in the company as workers from their first date of admission. Therefore, as per the conditions of the service applicable to the permanent employees working in the company, as to whether equivalent pay scale, allowances, promotion, CL, SL, PL, Bonus etc benefits may be paid to all these workers and whether their service be considered as continuous employment for all the other purposes of the service and they be paid all the benefits arising out of various Labour Laws in future with 12 % interest or not?
10. The ground on which the Order of Reference is challenged is that the dispute Nos.3 to 28 pertain to rise in the basic wages, allowance, etc. of the Page 33 of 58 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 02 21:20:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12023/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2025 undefined petitioner-company's worker and the respondent No.2- Union is not representing the petitioner-company's worker therefore, there is no locus with the Union to raise the dispute which is pertaining to the regular employees.
10.1. This Court refers the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Manager, Hotel Imperial, New Delhi Vs. Chief Commissioner, Delhi And Others, reported in AIR (1959)SC 1214 wherein it was held by the Apex Court that order of reference is not bad because it does not specify how many of the 480 workers of thirty different categories working in the hotel were involved in the dispute. It is held that it is unnecessary for the purpose of section 10 of the Act where the dispute was of a general nature relating to the terms of employment or condition of labour of a body of workmen, to mention the names of particular workmen who might have been responsible for the dispute. It was only where a dispute refers to the dismissal etc., of particular workmen as represented by the Union that it would be desirable to mention the names of the workmen concerned.
10.2. The another ground on which the terms of reference claimed to be defective is the settlement dated 27.04.2023 with the petitioner and the permanent workmen of the petitioner and is valid upto 31.12.2026 which is entered under Sections 2(P) and 18(1) of the I.D.Act and which was never sought to Page 34 of 58 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 02 21:20:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12023/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2025 undefined have been terminated by the petitioner Union.
10.3. This Court has referred the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Terminated Full Time Temporary LIC Employees vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others, reported in 2015(9) SCC 62 wherein the Apex Court has held that even if some workmen were bound under the compromise arrived, this in no way deters their right to raise the industrial dispute and get the same adjudicated.
10.4. This Court has perused the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Aditya Birla Insulators vs. Commissioner of Labour and ors, in Letters Patent Appeal No.498 of 2013 wherein it is held that plea taken by the appellants that there was a valid settlement and, therefore, no Reference should be made is not only a disputed question of fact specifically controverted by the respondent No.2 but also such question cannot be finally decided by the authority referring the dispute under section 10 of the Act and can only be lawfully decided by the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal. In that background, this Court is of the view that no error committed in referring the disputed fact to the learned Tribunal for adjudication.
10.5. The terms of reference is also challenged before this Court claiming that demand no.1 and 2 is Page 35 of 58 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 02 21:20:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12023/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2025 undefined defective and invalid on the ground that the dispute proceeds on the premise that contracts are sham and bogus, without being adjudication thereof relief to treat the contractual employees to be employee of the company and payment of wages accordingly was claimed.
11. At this stage, reference of the judgments relied by the learned advocates for the respective parties are required to be made:
11.1. In the case of State of Madras vs. C.P.Sarathy, reported in (1952) 2 SCC 606 Full Bench of the Apex Court has held that it is also desirable that the Government should, wherever possible, indicate the nature of the dispute in the order of reference, it must be remembered that in making a reference under section 10(1) the Government is doing an administrative act and the fact that it has to form an opinion as to the factual existence of an industrial dispute as a preliminary step to the discharge of its function does not make it any the less administrative in character. The Court cannot, therefore, canvass the order of reference closely to see if there was any material before the Government to support its conclusion. Moreover, it may not always be possible for the Government, on the material placed before it, to particularise the dispute in its order-of reference, for situations might conceivably arise where public interest requires that a strike or a look-out either Page 36 of 58 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 02 21:20:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12023/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2025 undefined existing or imminent should be ended or averted without delay, which, under the scheme of the Act, could be done only after the dispute giving rise to it has been referred to a Board or a Tribunal and the Government must, of course, have sufficient knowledge of the nature of the dispute to be satisfied that it is an industrial dispute within the meaning of the Act, as, for instance, that it relates to retrenchment or reinstatement. But, beyond this no obligation can be held to lie on the Government to ascertain particulars of the disputes before making a reference under section 10 (1) or to specify them in the order.
11.2. In the case of State of Bombay vs. K.P.Krishnan and others, reported in AIR (1960) SC 1223 wherein it is held that discretion of the Government to exercise its power of referring an industrial dispute is concerned it is very wide under Section 10(1) but is limited under the second proviso to Section 10(1). It is also held that in the cases where the conciliation officer has sent his report to an Appropriate Government under Section 12(4).That report must-set forth the steps taken by the officer for ascertaining the facts and circumstances relating to the dispute and for bringing about a settlement thereof together with a full statement of such facts and circumstances and the reasons on account of which in his opinion a settlement could not be arrived at. The object of Page 37 of 58 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 02 21:20:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12023/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2025 undefined requiring the Conciliation Officer to make such a full and detailed report is to apprise the Government of all the relevant facts including the reasons for the failure of the Conciliation Officer so that the Government may be in possession of the relevant material on which it can decide what course to adopt under Section 12(5).
It is further held in the above judgment that while appropriate Government acts under Section 12(5) whether the decision is bound only and solely on a consideration of the report made by the Conciliation Officer under Section 12(4). It is held that words used in Section 12(5) do not suggest that the report is the only material on which Government must base its conclusion. It would be open to the Government to consider other relevant facts which may come to its knowledge or which may be brought to its notice, and it is in the light of all these relevant facts that it has to come to its decision whether a reference should be made or not. It is further held that the order passed by the Government under Section 12(5) may be an administrative order and the reasons recorded by it may not be justifiable in the sense that their proprietary, adequacy or satisfactory character may not be open to judicial scrutiny. In that sense it would be correct to say that the court hearing a petition for mandamus is not sitting in appeal over the decision of the Government; nevertheless if the court is satisfied that the reasons given by the Government for refusing to make a reference are extraneous and not germane Page 38 of 58 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 02 21:20:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12023/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2025 undefined then the court can issue, and would be justified in issuing, a writ of mandamus even in respect of such an administrative order.
11.3. In the case of Hochtief Gammon Vs. Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneshwar, Orissa And Ors , reported in 1975 (2) SCC 649 wherein it is held that the Executive have to reach their decisions by taking into account relevant considerations. They should not refuse to consider relevant matter nor should They take into account wholly irrelevant or extraneous consideration. They should not misdirect themselves on a point of law. Only such a decision will be lawful. The courts have power to see that the Executive acts lawfully. It is no answer to the exercise of that power to say that the Executive acted bona fide nor that they have bestowed painstaking consideration. They cannot avoid scrutiny by courts by failing to give reasons. If they give reasons and if the same are not good reasons, the court can direct them to reconsider the matter in the light of relevant matters, though the propriety, adequacy or satisfactory character of those reasons may not be open to judicial scrutiny. Even if the Executive considers it inexpedient to exercise their powers they should state their reasons and there must be material to show that they have considered all the relevant facts.
11.4. Full Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of M/s.
Page 39 of 58 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 02 21:20:26 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12023/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2025 undefined Indian Tourism Development Corporation vs. Delhi Administration and others rendered in Civil Writ No.713 and 17142 of 1981 decided on 29.01.1982 has held that the jurisdiction of the Labour Court Industrial Tribunal in industrial disputes is limited to the points specifically referred for its adjudication and the matters incidental thereto and it is not permissible to go beyond the terms of the reference. An Industrial Adjudicator constituted under the Act is not vested with any inherent power or jurisdiction. It exercises such jurisdiction and power only upon and under order of reference limited to its terms. It cannot travel beyond the terms of reference except for ancilliary matters. Making of an order of reference is undoubtedly an administrative function, but even that is amenable to judicial review in the proceedings under Article 226 under certain facts and circumstances. An order of reference is open to judicial review if it is shown that the appropriate Government has not applied its mind to the material before it or has not taken into consideration certain vital facts, which it ought to have taken into consideration.
11.5. In the case of Gujarat Electricity Board, Thermal Power Stateion, Ukai, Gujarat vs. Hind Mazdoor Sabha and others, reported in 1995 (5) SCC 27 it is held that If the workmen of the so called contractor allege that in fact the contract is sham and they are in fact the workmen of the principal employer, they may Page 40 of 58 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 02 21:20:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12023/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2025 undefined raise the dispute themselves not for abolition of the contract labour system, but for making available to them the appropriate service conditions. When such dispute is raised, it is not for abolition of the contract labour, but for a declaration that the workmen concerned are in fact the employees of the principal employer, and for consequential reliefs on such declaration. If however, the contract is genuine, the direct workmen of the principal employer may espouse the industrial dispute for abolition of the contract labour system and for absorption of the contractor's workmen as the direct workmen of the principal employer. When such dispute is raised by the direct workmen of the principal employer, the industrial adjudicator can entertain the reference; but in view of the provisions of Section 10 of the Act, he will have first to direct the workmen to approach the appropriate Government for considering the question as to whether the contract labour in question should or should not be abolished under the said provisions. If, on such reference being made by the workmen, the appropriate Government does not abolish the contract labour, the industrial adjudicator has to reject the reference since the jurisdiction to abolish the contract is exclusively vested in the appropriate Government and he has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. It is held that If the workmen of the principal employer have not espoused the dispute, the adjudicator, after coming to the conclusion that the contract is genuine, Page 41 of 58 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 02 21:20:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12023/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2025 undefined has to reject the reference, the dispute being not an industrial dispute within the meaning of Section 2
(k) of the ID Act. He will not be competent to give any relief to the workmen of the erstwhile contractor even if the labour contract is abolished by the appropriate Government under Section 10 of the Act.
11.6. In the judgment rendered in the case of Nedungadi Bank Ltd. vs. K.P.Madhavankutty and others, reported in 2000 (2) SCC 455 it is held by the Apex Court that whenever a workman raises some dispute it does not become an industrial dispute and appropriate government cannot in a mechanical fashion make the reference of the alleged dispute terming as industrial dispute. Central Government lacked power to make reference both on the ground of delay in invoking the power under section 10 of the Act and there being no industrial dispute existing or even apprehended. The purpose of reference is to keep industrial peace in an establishment. The present reference is destructive to the industrial peace and defeats the very object and purpose of the Act and when an administrative order which does not take into consideration statutory requirements or travels outside that it is certainly subject to judicial review, limited though it might be.
11.7. In the case of Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited vs. State of Jharkhand and others, reported in 2014 (1) SCC 536 the Apex Court has Page 42 of 58 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 02 21:20:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12023/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2025 undefined held that the reference presupposes that the respondents workmen are the employees of the appellant. The reference also proceeds on the foundation that their services have been "transferred" to M/s. Lafarge. On these suppositions the limited scope of adjudication is confined to decide as to whether appellant is under an obligation to take back these workmen in service. Obviously, it is not the reflective of the real dispute between the parties. It not only depicts the version of the respondents workmen, but in fact accepts the same viz. they are the employees of the appellant and mandates the Labour Court/ Industrial Tribunal to only decide as to whether the appellant is required to take them back in its fold. On the contrary, as pointed out above, the case set up by the appellant is that it was not the case of transfer of the workmen to M/s Lafarge but their services were taken over by M/s. Lafarge which is a different company/ entity altogether. It is further held that though the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is confined to the terms of reference, but at the same time it is empowered to go into the incidental issues. Had the reference been appropriately worded, probably it was still open to the appellant to contend and prove that the Respondent workmen ceased to be their employees. However, the reference in the present form does not leave that scope for the appellant at all.
11.8. This Court has referred the decision rendered by Page 43 of 58 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 02 21:20:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12023/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2025 undefined the Apex Court in the case of National Engineering Industries Limited vs. State of Rajasthan and others, reported in 2010 (1) SCC 371 wherein it is held that industrial tribunal is the creation statue and it cannot go into question on validity of the reference.
11.9. In the case of M/s.Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs. The President, Oil Field Employees Association and Ors.,reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 176 wherein the Apex Court has held that "the dispute out of which the present appeal arises relates to the question as to whether the workmen engaged by the contractors would be entitled to pay at par with other workmen of the employer and demand to that effect was raised with the appellants only. The respondent Unions claimed to be, in reality, employees of ONGC and the demand was raised upon the latter, and not on their contractors. The nature of their demand was thus different particularly as regards the status of the workmen, i.e., their claim to be workmen of ONGC. Thus, the settlement of 19th September, 2016, in which the employers were the contractors cannot bind the subject-dispute, where the appellants have been found to be the employer on the basis of materials considered by the High Court. The engagement by the contractors cannot be the sole basis for determining their status as workmen of contractors. The nature of their demand was thus different particularly as regards Page 44 of 58 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 02 21:20:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12023/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2025 undefined the status of the workmen, i.e., their claim to be workmen of ONGC. Thus, the settlement of 19 th September, 2016, in which the employers were the contractors cannot bind the subject-dispute, where the appellants have been found to be the employer on the basis of materials considered by the High Court. Their engagement by the contractors cannot be the sole basis for determining their status as workmen of contractors.
11.10. This Court has referred the decision rendered in the Special Civil Application No.4414 of 1998 dated 15.09.1998 wherein the contention was raised that wording of the Reference is one sided and it would affect the defence of the management. The Coordinate Bench of this Court has held that the Government has applied its mind and made the Reference and prima facie the wording cannot be faulted for. It is further observed that the petitioner employer is not prevented from raising whatever defence is permissible to the them in law and that takes care of the apprehension expressed by the petitioner.
11.11. This Court has also referred the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.1805 of 2024 wherein it is held that the moment, the Labour Commissioner is satisfied that there is an existence of a dispute relating to the employment of the workman, it is not further open for Page 45 of 58 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 02 21:20:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12023/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2025 undefined him to adjudicate the same or form any opinion regarding the dispute, and he has no other alternative, but to refer the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal or to the Labour Court.
11.12. This Court has also referred the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Prabhakar (supra) wherein it is held that when the 'appropriate Government' makes a reference of an industrial dispute for adjudication, it does not decide any question of fact or law. The only condition, which the exercise of that power should satisfy, is that there should be the existence or apprehension of an industrial dispute. When once the Government is satisfied about this question, it acquires jurisdiction to refer the dispute for adjudication. However, the condition precedent to the formation of such opinion, that there should be an existing or apprehended 'industrial dispute', is imperative and the recitals of the existence or apprehension of the industrial dispute cannot preclude the Court to exercise its power of judicial review and to determine whether, in fact, there was any material before the 'appropriate Government' and if there was; whether the Government applied its mind in coming to the conclusion that an industrial dispute was in existence or was apprehended and it was expedient to make the reference. Therefore, an order of reference is open to judicial review if it is shown that the appropriate Government had no Page 46 of 58 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 02 21:20:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12023/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2025 undefined material before it or it has not applied its mind to the material before it or has not taken into consideration certain vital facts which it ought to have taken into consideration.
11.13. This Court has referred the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State Of Uttaranchal vs. Jagpal Singh Tyagi, reported in 2005(8) SCC 49 wherein the Apex Court has held that if there was dispute on the question as to whether settlement was bona fide or was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation or concealment of facts, then the same will a subject matter of another Industrial Dispute.In absence of any pleading that there was any pressure, or he was subjected to undue influence. The conclusion of the High Court that settlement was not at a free and fair one is erroneous. Having obtained the benefit, it was not open him to turn down without justifiable reason to contend that settlement was not arrived.
11.14. The another decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Jayhind Roadways vs. Maharashtra Rajya Mathadi Transport and General Kamgar Union and others, reported in 2005 (8) SCC 51 the Apex Court after relying on various decision including the National Engineering Industries Limited (Supra) has held that no issue raised regarding fairness of the settlement and Page 47 of 58 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 02 21:20:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12023/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2025 undefined learned Tribunal as well as the High Court came to the conclusion without any material that settlement was not fair.
11.15. The Apex Court in the case of Messrs. Shalimar Works Limited vs. Their Workmen, reported in AIR (1959) SC 1217 has held that the tribunal was justifying in refusing the relief of reinstatement to avoid the dislocation of the industry and that is the correct order to make. In addition, the reference in this case was vague inasmuch as the names of 250 workmen to be reinstated were not sent to the Industrial Tribunal and no list of these men was given to it till practically after the whole proceeding was over.
11.16. In the case of State of Punjab vs. The Gandhara Transport Company (P) Ltd And others, reported in 1975 (4) SCC 838 it is held that the espousal of the dispute, in this case, was only by five out of sixty employees of the respondent- company. It cannot in the circumstances, be held that there has been an espousal of the dispute in this case by an appreciable body of the workmen of the respondent-company so as to make it an Industrial Dispute. The State Government will have jurisdiction to make a reference only if there is an Industrial Dispute. As there was no Industrial Dispute, the reference made by the State Government has been rightly held by the Page 48 of 58 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 02 21:20:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12023/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2025 undefined High Court to be, incompetent.
11.17. In the case of Eagle Fashions vs. Secretary (Labour) and others, reported in 1997 SCC OnLine Del 970 the Delhi High Court has held that terms of reference have not been properly drawn up and therefore the order of reference is vitiated. In that circumstance, the appropriate Government was directed to draw up a fresh order of reference and recast the terms of reference if after hearing the parties it be satisfied that an industrial dispute does exist between the parties requiring a reference under Section 10 of the Act.
11.18. In the case of Smt.Palchuri Hanumayamma Vs Tadikamalla Kotlingam (D) By L.Rs. & Ors., reported in 2001 (9) SCC 557 the Apex Court has held that referring a dispute under Section 10 of the I.D.Act based on the assumption that the respondent has entered the service of the appellant and was removed then from service, suffered from material infirmity and was therefore, vitiated.The Division Bench was not right in forming the opinion that controversy raised by the appellant should have been left to be adjudicated upon industrial tribunal. Industrial Tribunal cannot go behind the order of reference, it would have right, on the terms of reference, the issue of removal of service and not the issue whether the respondent had at all entered in service.
Page 49 of 58 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 02 21:20:26 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12023/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2025 undefined 11.19. In the case of the Barium Chemicals Ltd. And Anr vs The Company Law Board And Others, reported in AIR (1967) SC 295 the Apex Court has held that formation of opinion by the Government should reflect intense application of mind with reference to the material available on record, which was reiterated in the another decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of 63 Moons Technologies Ltd.(Supra).
12. Overall consideration of all the above judgments suggest guidelines to exercise the powers under Section 10(1) of the I.D.Act, the function of the appropriate Government is an administrative function and not a judicial or quasi-judicial function and that in performing the said administrative function, the government cannot delve into the merits of the dispute/claims and take upon itself the task of determining of lis, which would be certainly beyond the power conferred under section 10 of the I.D.Act. The appropriate Government should not purport to reach a final decision on a question of law or disputed question of fact, or include its own judgment on the propriety or otherwise of the cause of dispute and take upon itself the task of deciding the industrial dispute on merits. Thus, apparently wide and absolute power is hatched by some limitation, which are as imperative as expressed limitation. Section 12(5) peremptory and requires the government to record and communicate the Page 50 of 58 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 02 21:20:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12023/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2025 undefined party the reasons for declining the reference. The requirement of giving reasons, the nature of reasons to be recorded and illustrative cases disapproving certain reasons for declining to make the reference which do not meet the requirement of law provide a search light to the appropriate government as to how its power to refer should be exercised.
13. It is indisputably in the instant case that the dispute exists between the company and the employee and the dispute is same, which was an industrial dispute as defined under the I.D.Act therefore, its factual existence and expediency of making reference in the circumstances of the particular case are matters entirely for the government to decide and the appropriate government is having the power under Section 10 to add or amplify the matter already referred there under for adjudication.
14. The ground mainly raised by the petitioner is that the dispute proceeds on the premise that contracts are sham and bogus, without having been adjudicated thereof, the terms of the reference were worded. The impugned order presupposes that the contracts are sham and bogus which would restrict this issue from being agitated before the industrial tribunal since there is already predetermination of the issue by the respondent No.1- Government, the question as to whether the contracts are sham and paper arrangement cannot be gone into by the learned tribunal.
Page 51 of 58 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 02 21:20:26 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12023/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2025 undefined
15. Therefore, the mute questions arise before this Court that even if industrial dispute exists, but whether by framing the terms, which are referred here in above the learned Tribunal would be able to decide the Reference in true and proper spirit. It appears that before deciding any terms, which are referred the issue with regard to the declaration of the contract as a sham and bogus is required to be decided first. If the contract is sham and not genuine, then the Workmen of the so called contractor can establish their case that they were always the employees of the principal employer and for claiming the appropriate service condition. When such dispute is raised, it is not for abolition of the labour contract. Therefore, the provision of section 10 of CLRA Act will not bark either raising or the adjudication of the dispute. However, if the learned Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the contract is genuine then it is only the appropriate Government, which has the authority to abolish genuine labour contract in accordance with the provision of this section of CLRA Act, no court, including the industrial adjudicator has jurisdiction to do so. Therefore, unless and until the adjudication on the declaration of the contracts and bogus is done, no further relief which are claimed by the present respondent can be examined.
16. The justification of the demand if one would refer then it suggests that the dispute which was raised by the contractual employees claiming the parity and the Page 52 of 58 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 02 21:20:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12023/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2025 undefined benefits of the regular employee. Demand No.1 seeks equal benefits at par with permanent employee whereas demand No.2 seeks declaration qua the direct employment with the petitioner company and demand nos.3 to 26 are wage revision and benefit for all the employees irrespective of their status. It transpires from the justification that the employees, who are engaged by the contractors and working since years together had claimed the benefits at par with the regular employee.
17. On referring the statement of claim wherein also the similar contention is raised and in prayer qua paragraph 9(A) declaration was sought that the contract system shall declare illegal and void and all the employees were treated to be the employee of the company. Reply to the justification given by the present petitioner also in the context of the declaration of the contract system as a paper arrangement and thereafter to declare the employee as a employee of principal employer.
18. The terms of the Reference in the opinion of this Court is framed on considering the chartered of demand however, while framing the terms instead of using the word 'declare the contract system' is sham and bogus, it was worded as 'the contract system is sham and bogus' thereafter, whether employees of the contractors are required to be treated at par with regular employee or not was referred for the adjudication. As the jurisdiction of the industrial adjudicator is limited by section 10(4) to the points specifically referred in the reference and Page 53 of 58 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 02 21:20:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12023/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2025 undefined matter incidental thereto. The above mentioned wording give rise to the dispute which brings before this Court.
19. At this stage, the affidavit filed filed by the respondent-
workman is required to be referred, which is referred hereinbeolow:
"***
2. I state that pursuant to the demand of the union dated. 13.03.2023, the petitioner herein has responded to the demand vide letter dated. 10.04.2023. I state that the petitioner company has refuse to accept and consider the demand of the union and therefore union has requested for initiation of conciliation proceeding, wherein the respondent no.2 union has submitted justification of demands wherein justification of demand 1 no. 1 and 2 was submitted wherein union has categorically stated that contract system created by the petitioner company is sham and bogus and same should be declared as illegal and void and all workmen working under the contract labour system should be treated as direct workmen along with all consequential benefits. Against the above stated Justification company has filed their reply to the justification on 05.02.2024, wherein the company has contended and stated that contract system prevailing in the company is genuine and bona-fide and therefore demands of the union should not be refer for adjudication.Page 54 of 58 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 02 21:20:26 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12023/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2025 undefined
3. In this background and in view of dispute between the parties, reference for adjudication of demands on merits has been referred and made by competent authority wherein the respondent union has filed statement of claim and Interim Relief Application. I state that in the statement of claims also, the respondent union has categorically stated and sought declaration in relief that the contract system created by the company is sham and bogus and prayed for passing an Award accepting the order of Reference with consequential relief.
4. In view of above and without prejudice to all our rights and contentions on behalf of respondent no. 2 union, I state that so far as demand no. 1 is concerned same is covered by demand no. 2 and therefore union declare that union do not wish to press demand no. 1 at this stage reserving its right to raise fresh demand.
5.So far as demand no.2 is concerned, the union further declare and clarify that what has been stated in support of demands no.2 in the statement of claims is for the declaration of contract system prevailing in the petitioner company as sham, bogus and paper arrangement and same may be declared as illegal and void and on such declaration consequential relief of treating the concerned workmen as direct workmen of Page 55 of 58 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 02 21:20:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12023/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2025 undefined the company from the date of joining with all consequential benefits at par with the permanent workmen of the company. I further state and clarify that from day one of raising of demands i.e. 13.03.2023, the union has always maintained its stand that demands of the union is for declaration of contract system being sham, bogus and paper arrangement and after such declaration to treat such workmen as direct workmen of the company and therefore petitioner company contentions are misconceived and based on no foundation."
20. Since the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in dealing with the industrial dispute referred to it under section 10 of the I.D.Act is limited by section 10(4) to the points specifically referred in the Reference and matters incidental thereto, appropriate government should frame the relevant Orders of Reference carefully and questions, which are intended to be tried by industrial Tribunal, should be so worded as to leave no scope of ambiguity or controversy. The present Order of Reference hastily drawn in a casual manner which give rise to unnecessary dispute and thereby prolong the life of industrial adjudication, which must always be avoided. It becomes Page 56 of 58 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 02 21:20:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12023/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2025 undefined the boundant duty of the appropriate Government to make the Reference appropriately which is reflecting of real, exact nature of dispute between the parties. As in the instant case, the actual dispute has not been termed while referring the dispute, this Court would not have any option except to set aside the impugned order and sending back the Reference to the appropriate Government for framing the fresh terms.
21. In the above background, the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 i.e. Commissioner of Labour, Gandhinagar in conciliation case No.103 of 2023 and conciliation case No.97 of 2023 dated 18.05.2024 and 24.05.2024 respectively referring the terms to the Industrial Tribunal are hereby set aside. The appropriate Government shall re-frame the terms in view of the observations made herein. That exercise shall be completed within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
22. In view of the above, these petitions are disposed of accordingly.
Page 57 of 58 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 02 21:20:26 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12023/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2025 undefined ORDER IN R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14245 of 2024 The matter is adjourned to 20.06.2025. Interim relief, granted earlier, to continue till the next date of hearing.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) M.M.MIRZA Page 58 of 58 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 02 21:20:26 IST 2025