The authorities under the Industrial Disputes Act have no jurisdiction to decide matters stipulated in the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, and the grievances of contract laborers can only be mitigated by the appropriate government in accordance with the provisions of the Central Act.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 1st respondent in connection with G.O.(D) No.49 dated 31.01.2017 and quash the same and direct the 1st respondent to refer the dispute that has been declined to be referred in aforesaid Government order and issue such further or other orders.)

1. The present Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 1st respondent in connection with G.O.(D) No.49 dated 31.01.2017 and quash the same and direct the 1st respondent to refer the dispute that has been declined to be referred in aforesaid Government order and issue such further or other orders.

2. The brief facts of the case is as follows:- The petitioner is the Union and the 3rd respondent is the management, engaged in the manufacturing the industrial fans and air pollution control plants supplying it to leading industries, namely, Tata steel, Larsen & Toubro, JSW, Iffco, SISCOL, NTPC etc., and morethan 100 workers were employed in the 3rd respondent factory. However, only 27 workers are treated as permanent employees and the rest of the workers are treated as ''trainess'' and ''contract labourers''. The 3rd respondent does not have any license for engaging contract employees.

(ii) In these circumstances, the petitioner union raised an industrial dispute against the 3rd respondent on 15.07.2015 raising two demands, viz., (i) To stop engaging contract customer for taking production in welding department and engage permanent workers in the factory (ii) To stop taking production using contract labours under the name of Krishna Contract. The management filed counter on 07.09.2015 making allegations against petitioner and the petitioner has also filed its reply to the counter on 28.09.2015, since there was no possiblility of amicable settlement, Conciliation Officer issued conciliation failure report dated 10.06.2016 and the same was sent to the 1st respondent dated 21.11.2016.

(iii) The 1st respondent declined to refer the two demands on the ground that the petitioner Union did not give specific dates on which the permanent workers were denied employment. The 1st respoondent without application of mind failed to identify the difference between permanent employees nature of work and contract employees nature of job. The said reason assigned by the 1st respondent is without application of mind. Seeking to set aside the said order passed by the 1st respondent, the petitioner has come up with the present petition.

3. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order is vitiated by non application of mind to the issues involved and the facts of case and the scope of the power vested in the 1st respondent under Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act. Further, the power to refer to an industrial dispute for adjudication is an administrative power and the Government cannot adjudicate with regard to the dispute in the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner union.

4. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner also submits that the 1st respondent without application of mind misconstrued the decision of Hon''ble supreme Court in the SAIL (2001 7 SCC 1) and declined to refer the industrial dispute for adjudication. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contention has relied on the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in 1987 SCC Online Mad 310 [Shaw Wallace & Co., Ltd., Vs. State of Tamilnadu and another], thereby sought to allow the present writ petition.

5. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submits that the 1st respondent has assigned valid reasons for issuance of the Government order and the petitioner has not furnished any details in respect of loss of employement and the grievances su