M.S. Sonak, J.

1] By an order dated 24th September, 2012, the parties were put to notice that these writ petitions may be finally decided at the admission stage. Rule. Rule is made returnable with the consent of all the parties forthwith.

2] The petitioner challenges the order of reference dated 9th July, 2012 made under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'said Act') by the State of Maharashtra (respondent No.1) and the Additional Labour Commissioner (respondent No.2) at the behest of Voltas Employees Union (respondent No.3).

3] Mr. Cama appearing for the petitioner in both the matters, at the outset, submitted that there is no appreciable difference in the facts in Writ Petition No.2663 of 2012 and Writ Petition No.9863 of 2012, except that whereas in Writ Petition No.2663 of 2012 issue of “contract labour” is involved and in Writ Petition No.9863 of 2012 issues of “casual labour” and “contract labour” are involved. Accordingly, both these petitions are being disposed of, by this common judgment and order. For sake of convenience, however, the facts in Writ Petition No.2663 of 2012 have been adverted to.

4] The challenge to the impugned order of reference is based on the following grounds;

A] The order of reference concerns “contract labour”, who are not employees of the petitioner company. There is no 'employer-employee' relationship between the petitioner company and such “contract labour”. As such, the dispute is in respect of the persons, who are not “workmen” under Section 2(s) of the said Act. Inasmuch as this jurisdictional aspect has been ignored, the impugned reference order is vitiated by non-application of mind and is consequently required to be quashed and set aside.

B] As per the constitution of respondent No.3 Union, the Union can espouse the cause of its own members only. The membership of the Union is limited to the permanent employees of the petitioner company. The dispute now raised, pertains to “contract labour”, who are not even employees of the petitioner company, much less permanent employees. Therefore, the Union as per its own constitution had no right or locus standi to espouse the cause of such “contract labour”. The impugned reference order made at the behest of respondent No.3 Union is consequently ultra-vires and without jurisdiction.

C] Respondent No.3 Union has filed two complaints (ULP) Nos. 342 of 2004 and 439 of 2009 for claim of permanency on behalf of “contract labour” and the complaint (ULP) No.342 of 2004 has been dismissed by the Industrial Court, Maharashtra by judgment and order dated 20th April, 2011. In view thereof, the impugned reference order referring similar demands of the 3 rd respondent for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal are hit by bar of Section 59 of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971.

D] Mr. Cama relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of National Engineering Industries Ltd Vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2000 Supreme Court 469, in support of his contention that the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition challenging an order of reference made under the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 and that an Industrial Tribunal, which is a creation of statute cannot go into the question of validity of reference. He placed particular reliance upon paragraph Nos.27, 28 and 29 of the judgment.

5][A] Mr. Bapat appearing for the 3rd respondent Union, countered by pointing out that the appropriate Government whilst making the impugned reference order has specifically kept the issue of locus standi of 3rd respondent open for adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal. He further contended that “contract labour”, were the members of the Union and in any case, in terms of section 2 (k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Union comprising direct employees of the employer were competent to raise industrial disputes with regard to the persons, who may not be 'workmen' under section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

5][B] Mr