The court emphasized the limitations of judicial interference under Article 227 of the Constitution and the need for evidence to establish an employer-employee relationship.

JUDGMENT

Rajnesh Oswal, J. - The demand Notice No. SWU/24-27 dated 15.02.1997 was issued by the respondent No.1 espousing the cause of respondent No.4, w/o Sher Singh, who was ex-employee of the petitioners, for converting her to work charge cadre as per policy with effect from 01.10.1988 in the pay scale of 260-400 (pre-revised) with full back wages and other monetary benefits. The Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jammu after recording the failure of conciliation between the petitioners and the respondent No.1, reported the matter to respondent No.3 vide its report dated 29.01.1998. The respondent No.3 vide its order dated 10.09.1998 made a reference under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1974 to the respondent No. 2. The respondent No.2 after considering the evidence led by the contesting parties answered the reference by virtue of an award dated 06.05.2002, thereby holding respondent No. 4 entitled to the scale wages w.e.f. 01.10.1988.

2. The petitioners have pleaded that the respondent No. 4 was engaged by the Society known as the Salal Project Employees Co-operative Society Limited and was never engaged on compassionate basis by the petitioners. The petitioners through the medium of this writ petition have not only impugned the award dated 06.05.2002 but also the notification No. L-42011/13/98/IR(DU) dated 10.09.1998, whereby reference was made by the respondent No.3 to the respondent No.2 as well as the notification dated 21.05.2002 published pursuant to the award of respondent No.2 on the following grounds:

(i) That the reference made by respondent No. 3 is invalid as no reference under the Industrial Disputes Act can be made in respect of a dispute, which is not inter se between the workman and the management.

(ii) That the finding of respondent No. 2 is based upon "no evidence? as respondent No. 4 was in fact appointed and paid by a Co-operative Society formed by the employees of a Corporation/Project.

(iii) That the respondent No. 2 has erred in omitting to consider the documentary evidence of the Co-operative Society which proved that respondent No. 4 had been paid consolidated wages of Rs. 750 by the society, which fact had been admitted by respondent No. 4 in her testimony.

(iv) That the respondent No. 2 has erred in holding that as the appointment order of respondent No. 4 as an employee of the Co-operative Society has been signed by an officer of the corporation, so that would make her as an employee of the corporation.

3. Counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No. 4, in which it has been stated that the writ petition is not maintainable as the evidence cannot be re-appreciated in the writ petition. It is also stated that a notification issued by the Central Government referring the dispute to the respondent No.2 has been challenged after more than four years, as such, this writ petition suffers from delay and laches. It is further stated that respondent No. 4 was appointed by virtue of the appointment order dated 01.04.1987 issued by the office of Senior Manager (P&A) Salal Hydroelectric Project Jyotipuram. The said order has not been issued by the Co-operative Society. Merely, placing the services of respondent No. 4 in the office of Salal Project Co-operative Store does not mean that she has been appointed by the authority other than the petitioners. In nutshell, the stand of respondent No. 4 is that she was the employee of the petitioners and not of Co-operative Society as she never applied for appointment in the Co-operative Society and in fact, she sought/applied appointment on compassionate grounds with the petitioners only. The payment of wages of respondent No. 4 from the funds of co-operative store is immaterial and the nature and character of the employment can be equated with an employee placed on deputation. It is also the stand of respondent No. 4 that the petitioners? employees are working in this Salal Project Employees Consumer Store and it clearly shows that the petitioners have place