Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule taken up for hearing forthwith, by consent of Counsel.

2. This petition seeks to challenge an award passed by the Industrial Tribunal at Mumbai in a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act (“Act”).

3. The Petitioner is an engineering company manufacturing automobile parts. Respondent No.1 is a trade union representing workmen engaged by the Petitioner through contractors purportedly under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 are said to be licensed contractors through whom workmen are engaged. The dispute in the present petition concerns employment of about 31 employees engaged by the Petitioner through Respondent Nos.2 to 4. The agreements for supply of contract labour, under which these workmen were employed purportedly as contract labour and were working for various periods between 8 to 15 years, were not renewed in the year 2004 by the Petitioner. At that stage, on or about 6 September 2004, Respondent No.1 Union sent demand letters to the Petitioner demanding that 31 employees engaged by the Petitioner through Respondent Nos.2 to 4 be treated as direct and permanent employees of the Petitioner from the dates of their respective appointments and all benefits be given to them as in the case of other permanent/regular employees working in the Petitioner establishment. The demands were referred to the conciliation officer. Upon failure of conciliation proceedings, the matter was referred by the State Government to the Industrial Tribunal at Mumbai. It was the case of the Respondent union before the Industrial Tribunal that the contracts for supply of labour purportedly entered into between the Petitioner and Respondent Nos.2 to 4 were sham and bogus and that for all purposes and intents, these 31 employees were entitled to be treated as direct and permanent employees with effect from the dates of their respective appointments and getting all service benefits including wages as in the case of permanent employees of the Petitioner. On the other hand, it was the case of the Petitioner and Respondent Nos.2 to 4 that the workmen were employees of the contractors; they were paid wages, and supervised, by the latter; and there was no masterservant relationship between the Petitioner and the workmen. Both sides led oral and documentary evidence. The Industrial Tribunal, in its impugned order, declared that these alleged contractual employees be treated as direct employees of the Petitioner from the dates of their appointment and all benefits, including wages and allowances as in the case of permanent employees of the Petitioner, be extended to them. Being aggrieved by this award, the Petitioner has approached this court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the impugned award.

4. At the outset, Mr. Bukhari, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, raises certain legal objections concerning the impugned award. Learned Counsel submits that the services of these 31 workmen were terminated as far back as on 31 December 2004 and that on the date of the reference, neither of these workmen was in the employment either of the Petitioner or of any of contractors, i.e. Respondent Nos.2 to 4. Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Oshiar Prasad vs. Employers of Sudamdih Coal Washery of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad, Jharkhand, (2015) 4 SCC 71 learned Counsel submits that there was, in the premises, no industrial dispute in existence on the date of the reference and accordingly, the reference was misconceived and incapable of being answered in favour of the Respondent union. In Sudamdih Coal Washery's case, the employment of the workmen was terminated sometime in December 1979. The reference was applied for by the concerned workmen sometime after November 1994, that is to say, nearly 15 years after the concerned workmen ceased to be in the employment. The Su