JUDGMENT :

Nishita Mhatre, J.—Rule in both petitions. Rule made returnable forthwith in both petitions by consent. Respondent No. 2 in both petitions deleted, being a formal party.

2. Both these writ petitions challenge the interim order of the Industrial Tribunal passed in a Reference before it for adjudication of the dispute as to whether the workmen concerned are entitled to the benefits of permanency as claimed by them through their union. (For the sake of convenience, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2525 of 2004 will be referred to as 'the employer' and the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3102 of 2004 will be referred to as 'the Union').

3. The employer claims that after coming to the conclusion that there is no relationship of master and servant between it and the workmen represented by the Union, the Tribunal could not have granted the relief of status quo being maintained qua the workmen. According to the employer, since the relationship had not been established, the employer could not have been directed to continue the workmen listed in Annexure A to the statement of claim in service during the pendency of the reference.

4. As against this, the Union submits that on a bare