JUDGMENT

J. :— Special leave is granted. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The appellants, Telco Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh, Jamshedpur, and another, have preferred this appeal against the judgment of the Patna High Court whereby the High Court dismissed the writ petition of the appellants challenging the order of the State of Bihar refusing to make a reference of the disputes raised by the appellants to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as "the Act".

3. The appellant Sangh represents about 900 convoy drivers. By a letter of demand dated October 16, 1986 addressed to the General Manager of the Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd., Jamshedpur (for short "TELCO"), the Sangh demanded that permanent status should be given by the management to all the convoy drivers, and that they should also be given all the factilities as are available to the permanent employees of TELCO on the dates of their appointment. The said demand proceeds on the basis that the convoy drivers are all workmen of TELCO. The dispute that has been raised in the said letter of demand is principally whether the convoy drivers are workmen and/or employees of TELCO or not. In other words, whether there is relationship of employer and employees between TELCO and the convoy drivers.

4. The Deputy Labour Commissioner by his letter dated February 26, 1979 informed the appellant-Sangh that in view of the opinion of the Law Department of the year 1973 to the effect that there was Do relationship of master and servant between TELCO and the convoy drivers, the demands of the convoy drivers did not come within the purview of the Act and, accordingly, it was not possible to take any action in regard to the dispute of convoy drivers under the Act. The appellant-Sangh being aggrieved by the said refusal to make a reference under Section 10(1) of the Act, moved before the Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court a writ petition praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the State of Bihar to refer the dispute under Section 10(1) of the Act. A learned Single Judge of the High Court, who heard the writ petition, took the view that the letter of the Deputy Labour Commissioner only referred to the Law Departments opinion of the year 1973 without indicating in what context and under what circumstance, he rejected the demand for a reference. In that view of the matter, the learned Judge granted liberty to the Sangh to reagitate the matter before the appropriate Government and expressed the hope that the appropriate Government would consider the matter in a proper perspective in the light of the documents and the materials that would be placed by the Sangh in accordance with law. The writ petition was dismissed subject, however, to the observation and direction mentioned above.

5. Pursuant to the liberty granted by the High Court, the Sangh made a representation to the Government for a reference of the dispute under Section 10(1) of the Act. The Deputy Labour Commissioner, Jamshedpur, by his letter dated November 6, 1986 gave the same reply and refused to make a reference.

6. Again, the appellant-Sangh moved a writ petition before the High Court and, as stated already, the High Court summarily dismissed the same holding that the appellants had failed to prima facie satisfy that they were employed either by TELCO or by the Telco Contractors Association. Hence this appeal.

7. It has been urged by Mr. Pai, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, that the Government exceeded its jurisdiction in purporting to decide the dispute raised by the appellant-Sangh in the said letter of demand. Counsel submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Government should have made a reference to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10(1) of the Act for the adjudication of the dispute of the convoy drivers and should not have embarked upon the task of deciding the dispute on its merits through the Depu