H.H.Kantharia, J. - (1.)In these two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, facts are common and the law points are the same and, therefore, they are being disposed of (by this common judgment.
(2.)The petitioners, in both the petitions, were employed by the Mill Mazdoor Sabha (the second respondent) which is a trade union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. The services of the petitioners were terminated. They, therefore, raised industrial disputes and demanded reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages. Conciliation proceedings were initiated and as the matter could not be settled, a failure report was submitted. Ultimately by identical orders, dated 31st May, 1982, the State of Maharashtra (the first respondent) declined to refer the disputes for adjudication to the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal since in the opinion of the Government, the petitioners were not the workmen within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The said orders of the Government are impugned in these two writ petitions.
(3.)Mr. Puri, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the second respondent submits that it is for this Court to enquire into the activities of the second respondent to find out whether the second respondent is an industry and the petitioners are the workman as defined in the Act. Mr. Chougule, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the first respondent, concurs with the submission of Mr. Puri and urges that it is on the material before the Government that it came to the conclusion that the second respondent was not an industry and, therefore, the petitioners were not workmen and, therefore, these are not fit cases in which references should be ordered. In the alternative both Mr. Puri and Mr. Chougule submit that at the most this Court may direct the Government to reconsider the matter all afresh.