Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. Sri C.R.Sridharan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that the view taken by the Labour Court was not correct and the learned single Judge considered various decisions and came to the conclusion that the reference by the Government at the instance of two workmen was bad and since the said finding was based on the decisions of the Supreme Court, no interference with the order of the learned single Judge is warranted. He submitted that no relationship of employer and employee existed between the appellants and the respondent as they were admittedly employed through a contractor and hence reference at their instance cannot be called as an industrial dispute and relied on Workmen of FCI v. Food Corporation of India for his submissions. He also submitted that, after failure of consideration, the appellants should have resorted to the provisions under Section 2-A of the Act instead of Government invoking Section 12(5) of the Act. He relied on Bombay Union of Journalists v. The Hindu , W.I.Match Co. v. W.I.Match Co. Workers Union , State of Punjab v. Gandhara Transport Co. , Indian Cable Co. Ltd. v. Workmen , Employers of Express Newspapers (Private) Ltd., Madras v. Labour Court, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad , Tirupathi Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Labour Court , a single Judge decision of this Court in W.P.No.586 of 1962 dated 07.10.1963, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Krishna Kant , Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. Anil and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.A.No.516 of 2007 dated 25.06.2007. He also submitted that since the reference was wrongly made by the Government, the Award also should go. He also submitted that if it is the case of the appellants that they were employed by a contractor in respect of the prohibited categories, prohibited under G.O.Ms.No.375 dated 05.06.1981, their remedy was different and they should not have resorted to the provisions of the Act.