The appropriate Government must apply its mind while wording an order of reference under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Soumen Sen, J.

All the matters are taken up analogously and disposed of by this common judgment and order.

The subject matter of challenge in this writ petition are three similarly worded orders of reference all dated 28th February, 2013.

The petitioner challenging the said orders contended that the appropriate Government is perverse and suffers from total non-application of mind. The said submission is based on the premise that the respondent Nos.3, 4, 5 and 8 are registered trade unions of the Contractors engaged at N.T.P.C., F.S.T.T.P. protecting the interest of the contractor’s workman. The petitioner’s company does not employ any workman of the contractor directly and there is no existence of any master-servant relationship between the petitioner-company and the said respondents.

The respondent No.7 is an association formed by the contractors who are engaged by the petitioner-company for the purpose of execution of various exigencies of work. The petitioner-company does not exercise any supervision, administration and control over the work performed by the workman. In or about May, 2010 the respondent trade unions raised an issue with the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Kolkata, regarding discrimination in payment of wages and other fringe benefits of some contract workers working without ‘norms’ under different contractors in the NTPC. It was alleged in the said proceeding that there is a major discrimination concerning unequal payment of wages and other fringe benefits for which there is a resentment among ‘nonnorm’ workers since their wages and fringe benefits are not at par with the ‘norms’ workers engaged by the contractors of the petitioner-company.

The present conditions of service of the norm labourers of the contractors have been regulated by settlement executed on November 29, 2009 by and between the Association of Contractors/contractors and the contract labourer’s union, i.e. the workmen of the contractors represented by their trade unions. They are reportedly the workers of the contracts who have worked with their employer/contractors under various contracts and settlement since 4th November, 1987 and by reason of their experience and length of service they were paid certain additional benefits by their employers in terms of various settlement executed between 1987 and November, 2009.

The petitioner was summoned for conciliation in a dispute raised by the respondent trade unions before the respondent No.2 by notice dated 2nd August, 2010. The said notice was issued following the representation received from Farakka NTPC Contractors’ Shramik Union, F.S.T.P.P.P.R.S Contract Workers Union and F.S.T.P.P. Ltd. Thika Sramik (Service & Maintenance) Union (CITU) regarding payment to workers working under various contractors in all sites of NTPC, Farakka. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 intimated the petitioner that there is no such term used as ‘norm’ or ‘non-norm’ in Labour laws in respect of contract labourers and they are categorized in four categories, unskilled, semiskilled, skilled and highly skilled and, therefore, these type of categorization of norms and non-norms is obviously creating resentment amongst the workers, those who are continuing since long. The petitioner was requested to look into the matter and discuss the matter with the Union and try to find out the ways and means so that this discrimination, if any, could be sorted out without any further delay.

The petitioner, however, by letter dated 21st September, 2010 expressed his inability to attend the meeting since according to the petitioner the dispute is essentially regarding payment of wages between the workers of the contractors and the contractors and NTPC being a principal employer had no role to play in the matter. However, the petitioner clarified that all the contracting agencies have been directed to pay their workers minimum wages and there is no dispute regarding payment of minimum wages.

The respondent No.2, thereafter, on 1