IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the validity of a reference order made under the Industrial Disputes Act, emphasizing the administrative nature of such references and allowing the Tribunal to adjudicate claims from both regular and contractual employees.

JUDGMENT :

M. K. Thakker, J.

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocates for the respondents waives service of Rule.

2. With the consent of the parties the matters are heard finally.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the reference order made by the State government to the learned Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad present petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

4. The facts needed to be considered for the disposal of the case are as under:

4.1. The petitioner company is engaged in manufacturing and export and is re-known for excellent quality and delivery of the bearings and it's one plant is located at Salvi, Vadodara which became operational since 2014. Labour dispute arose in the said plaint 04.08.2020 and as per the allegation of the petitioner company on the instigation of Union, the employees of the petitioner and the contract casual labourers went on strike. Due to intervention of local MLA on 10.08.2020 the strike was called of and all employees of the company were permitted to join service without changes in their service conditions. Thereafter, Union again got involved in instigating the contract labours and one of the contract labourer stopped to resume the duty and he was absent for more than 10 days and had travelled inter State during Covid pandemic. On resuming the duties, the employee refuted to undergo the Covid test and instigated other employees to go on strike. After the employees went on strike, the government labour officer visited the premises and after insistence, the workman resumed the duties. On 02.12.2020 again the workers went on strike to bring pressure on the company to cancel the suspension and inquiry of 15 employees. The Union send charter of demand to the petitioner company and pursuant thereto petitioner company was called for conciliation with regard to the demand raised by contract labourer in IDR Case No.220 of 2020. Thereafter, the contention was raised that it was not strike but the same was lock-out. To decide the same, the reference was made on 12.03.2021 by 398 workers, who have not been permitted to work.

4.2. The aforesaid order of reference was challenged before this Court by filing the SCA No.7377 of 2021 and same is pending for adjudication before this Court. On the same day i.e on 12.03.2021, the second reference order was passed by the respondent no.3 in conciliation case no.220 of 2020 to decide the 22 demand including wage revision of 398 workmen and to get permanent status of 337 workmen, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.

5. Heard learned senior advocate Mr.K.M.Patel with learned advocate Mr.Hamesh Naidu and learned advocate Ms.Sangeeta Pahwa for the respondent.

5.1. Learned senior advocate Mr.K.M.Patel submits that the respondent no.3 has made reference without application of mind and without hearing the present petitioner adequately. The conciliation proceedings were held for 337 employees in conciliation case no.220 of 2020 however, the reference was referred for adjudication to the learned Tribunal for 398 employees. This apparently shows that without having applying the mind, in a mechanical manner, the reference order was passed. Learned senior advocate Mr.K.M.Patel submits that list which was annexed in the IDR case No.221 of 2020 was annexed with the conciliation case no.220 of 2020. Learned senior advocate Mr.K.M.Patel submits that erroneously 61 employees, who are the regular employees, were also made a party of the reference which was raised for contractual employees. Learned senior advocate Mr.K.M.Patel submits that without joining the contractor as a party, reference was made with by the contractual employees, who are in number 337 employees. Learned senior advocate Mr.K.M.Patel submits that considering the charter of demand wherein, in all 22 demands were raised and out of said demands, demand no.19 and 20 is with regard to treating the contractual employees as an employee of the principal employer. Lea