Swatanter Kumar, C.J.

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi, referred the disputes specified in the Schedule thereto vide order dated 11th July, 2007. The order reads as under. “Government of India/Bharat Sarkar Ministry of Labour & employment/Shram Aur Rojgar Mantralaya

New Delhi, dated 11/7/2007

ORDER

No. L30015/ 9/2007( IR(M): WHEREAS the Central Government is of the opinion that an industrial dispute exists between the employers in relationt o the management of M/s. Gulf Oil Corporation Limited and their workmen in respect of the matters specified in the schedule hereto annexed.

AND WHEREAS the Hon’ble High Courft of Judicature at Bombay in WP No. 309/2007 has directed the Central Government to take fresh decision on reference of the dispute for adjudication.

3. NOW THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) the Central Government hereby refers the said dispute for adjudication to the CGIT-cum-Labour Court No.2, Mumbai. The Tribunal shall give its award within a period of three months.

The Schedule

Whether the demand of the union for reinstatement of Shri Sudhakar Parte in services w.e.f. 06.03. 2007 and his absorption/regularisation in service as ‘permanent’ workman with the management of M/s. Gulf Oil Corporation Ltd. w.e.f.20.01.1997 is legal, proper and justified? If so, to what relief Shri Sudhakar Parte is entitled to and from which date?

(N.S. BORA)

DESK OFFICER”

2. M/s. Gulf Oil Corporation Limited, a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, having its Lubricant Division office at InCentre, 45/50 MIDC, 12th Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai, has challenged the correctness and legality of the said order in the present writ petition on the ground that the demand raised on behalf of the workman cannot constitute industrial dispute as defined under Section 2 (k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). There was no relationship of employer-employee between the workman and the petitioner company. The workman was an employee of respondent No.5 and respondent No.6 had no membership in the establishment of the petitioner. Furthermore, the order of reference was bad as it did not refer the question of contract labour despite a specific plea having been raised before it. Respondent No.3 had clearly contended on record that the employment was by them and, in fact, there was no termination. On this premise, it is argued that the order of reference amounts to referring an erroneous dispute and is arbitrary, contrary to the legal principles and is, therefore, liable to be set aside by this Court.

3. The facts relevant obviously fall within a very narrow compass. The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, having its lubricant division at the address mentioned in the cause title. Respondent Nos. 3,4 and 5 were the contractors, who, according to the petitioner, employed one Sudhakar Parte and in turn had assigned him to work with the petitioner. Respondent No.6 is the Secretary of the General Employees Association, an alleged trade union which has espoused the cause of the said workman. The petitioner has also raised a plea that the said union has no membership in the establishment of the petitioner and there is no community of interest by other workmen of the company in the demand of the said workman. Respondent No.3 had assigned the petitioner under a contract for service. The workman filed a complaint of unfair labour practice under Item 1 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, hereinafter referred to as “the MRTU & PULP Act, alleging therein that the petitioner had conspire to terminate his employment and had lodged the complaint in anticipation before the Labour Court, Mumbai. Parti