The determination of employment relationships and the validity of contracts lies within the jurisdiction of the industrial adjudicator, particularly when claims of sham contracts are raised.

JUDGMENT

Harsh Bunger, J.

Petitioner (M/s Mark Exhaust System Limited) has filed the instant writ petition, seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside Clause-1 of the Reference Order ("whether workers were employed with the management or with contractor") and to delete the name of the petitioner from the array of the parties in the Reference Order dated 04.03.2020 (Annexure P-14).

A further prayer has been made for staying proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Circle-II, Gurugram qua the petitioner.

2. Briefly, the petitioner is stated to be engaged in the manufacture of auto parts and claims that it has approximately 90 regular workmen. It is the case of the petitioner that for dealing with other incidental works like loading, unloading, security services, drivers, house-keeping, pantry, welding, material handling and movement; the petitioner's company is engaging contract labour by following the requirements of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition Act, 1970) (here-in-after referred to as 'the CLRA Act, 1970'). It is the case of the petitioner that it is duly registered for engaging contractor and contract labour. Respondents no.6 to 8 are stated to be the duly licensed contractors, to whom the contracts were given by the petitioner company.

3. As per the petitioner, the workers of the contractors had initially raised a demand notice dated 02.03.2017, claiming enhanced wage allowances, regular increments, appointment letters, leave etc. The said demand notice was replied by the respondent-Management, by pointing out that the contract workers were engaged by the contractors and were being paid wages by the contractors only and there was no master-servant/employer-employee relationship between the petitioner- Company and the contractor's workmen. It is also the case of the petitioner that another demand notice dated 10.10.2017 was also served by the contractor's workers against the petitioner company and its contractors, alleging their illegal termination on 24.04.2017. It is further the case of the petitioner-company that another demand notice dated 07.12.2018 was served by three contractor's workers (respondents No.3 to 5, herein) by claiming themselves to be the General Secretary, Vice President and the President of 'Mark Exhaust Theka Sharmik Sangthan.'

4. As per the petitioner, the aforesaid demand notice was replied by the petitioner's company as well as the contractors and the contractors had admitted that the workers, mentioned in the demand notice, were working with them. Petitioner claims that the Government, without applying its mind to the stand taken by the Management and also the stand of the contractors, made reference on 04.03.2020 (Annexure P-14) as under:-

"(i) Whether workers were employed with management or with Contractor?

(ii) Whether their termination is justified or not ?

(iii) Whether workers are entitled to any relief ?"

In the afore-mentioned circumstances, the petitioner-company has filed this writ petition, seeking setting aside of Clause (i) of the Reference Order (Annexure P-14) by submitting that the appropriate government has failed to apply its mind and formulate an opinion on the basis of material on record as to whether there exist a genuine industrial dispute. Petitioner-company claims that the CLRA Act, 1970 does not prohibit use of contract labour and when there is a valid contract system, there is no employee-employer relationship between the contractor's workers and the principal employer. It is the case of the petitioner-Company that the workers were never employed by it and the