MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA

1. The appellant has invoked Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to challenge the oral judgment dated 29.9.2006 of learned Single Judge, whereby the original petition of respondent No.1 herein was allowed and the Union of India was directed to refer the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner, as envisaged by Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It was further directed that ad-interim order dated 4th August, 2006, by which the appellant was restrained from changing conditions or terminating services of the workmen concerned, shall operate during the subsistence of contract between the appellant and the contractors concerned.

2. The original petitioner, Trade Union of workmen, had, in the original petition, challenged the order dated 29.06.2006 of the Government refusing to refer the dispute as not fit for adjudication on the ground that the workmen in respect of whom dispute was raised were not appointed by the management of the appellant. It was case of the Trade Union that the appellant engaged drivers through Transport Contractors and contracts with the Transport Contractors were sham and bogus and hence demand was raised, inter alia, to treat the workmen concerned as regular, permanent and direct workmen of the appellant.

3. It was argued by learned counsel Mr. Ajay R. Mehta, appearing for the appellant, that the impugned judgment was not sustainable in law in view of the fact that contracts with the Transport Contractors or Travel Agencies were ex-facie providing for transport services to be rendered by contractors and employees or drivers of such contractors had no relationship or privity of contract with the appellant Corporation. He vehemently argued that, in absence of relationship of master and servant between the appellant and the employees of the contractors, there cannot be any question of any industrial dispute among them involving the appellant and hence, the order impugned before the Court in the original petition was legal and proper and ought to have been upheld. The learned counsel relied upon recent judgment of the Supreme Court in ANZ Grindlays Bank Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others [(2005) 12 SCC 738] and laid specific emphasis on the observations therein, as under:

"14. Mr. Bhatt, learned Counsel for the second respondent, has submitted that this Court should not interfere with the order of the Central Government making a reference under Section 10 of the Act, as the appellant can ventilate its grievances before the Industrial Tribunal itself and if the decision of the Tribunal goes against the appellant, the same may be challenged in accordance with law. According to learned counsel the writ petition is premature as the appellant has got a remedy before the Tribunal to show that the reference is either bad in law or is uncalled for. We are unable to accept the submission made. It is true that normally a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be entertained against an order of the appropriate Government making a reference under Section 10 of the Act, as the parties would get opportunity to lead evidence before the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal and to show that the claim made is either unfounded or there was no occasion for making a reference. However, this is not a case where the infirmity in the reference can be shown only after evidence has been adduced. In the present case the futility of the reference made by the Central Government can be demonstrated from a bare reading of the terms of the reference and the admitted facts. In such circumstances, the validity of the reference made by the Central Government can be examined in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution as no evidence is required to be considered for examining the issue raised."

4. Learned counsel Mr. Rajesh Mankad, appearing with Dr. Mukul Sinha, submitted that the contracts between the appellant and the Transport Contractors or Travel Agencies were allege