Arijit Pasayat, J. - (1.) Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Guwahati High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. The writ appeal was directed against the common judgment and order dated 7-5-2002 passed by learned single Judge wherein the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 2 i.e. Management of Assam Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (in short the AIDC) was allowed while dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. Both the writ petitions were directed against the Award of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Assam, at Guwahati (hereinafter referred to as the Labour Court). The appellant claims to be the Union of employees of M/s. Industrial Papers (Assam) Ltd. (in short the IPAL). Learned single Judge held that there is a clear-cut finding in the Award to the effect that workmen were not employees of AIDC, and therefore, the question of giving them benefit as was done by the Labour Court did not arose and consequently that part of the Award was quashed.
(2.) Background facts in a nutshell are as follows : The appellant, being the registered Trade Union, looking after the welfare of its members employed by AIDC in its Extensible Sack Kraft Paper Project (for sake, called as ESKPP) under IPAL, raised a dispute for non-payment of salaries of its members by AIDA after October, 1998 on the plea that the members of the appellant were not the employees of AIDC but of the IPAL. Accordingly the appropriate Govt. vide notification dated 20-2-1999 referred the following issues to the Labour Court for adjudication. The issues are quoted below : "1. Whether the management of Assam Industrial Development Corporation is justified to deny as owner of the Sack Craft Paper Project of M/s. Industrial Papers (Assam) Ltd. (IPAL), though they have signed an agreement with a contractor as owner of the Sack Kraft Paper Project, Dhing, District Nagaon, Assam. 2. Whether the Assam Industrial Development Corporation AIDC is justified to deny to take the responsibility of the Industrial Papers (Assam) Ltd. employees, though the employees were appointed by the AIDC through the advertisement published in the newspaper. 3. Whether the management of AIDC is justified by not absorbing or engaging the employees of the IPAL, in their other Promoted industries or give them salary regularly though they have failed to install or run the proposed Paper Mill in Dhing, Nagaon. 4. If not, then the said affected employees are entitled for either regular monthly salary from the management or absorption in the other Industrial Units promoted by the Assam Industrial Development Corporation, Guwahati. 5. And the AIOC should not recruit or appoint new employees to say other their Promoted Industries until and unless the employees of the Industrial Paper are engaged or absorbed by the Management."
(3.) The Labour Court issued notice dated 22-5-1999 to the respective parties to the alleged disputes. In pursuance of the notice, both the AIDC and the appellant filed their respective written statements and additional written statements. AIDC, in their written statement, raised preliminary objection, specifically with the issues under reference, inter alia, questioning the maintainability of the reference stating that the purported dispute referred to by the Notification is not an industrial dispute within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called as the Act) and the Notification issued by the Government cannot constitute an industrial dispute because AIDC was not a proper or necessary party and the members of the appellant, being employees of a separate company i.e. IPAL, cannot claim to be employees of AIDC which was only a Promoter Company.;