AJAY KUMAR MITTAL,C.J. - (1.)The present writ appeal is filed under Section 2 of Madhya Pradesh Uchha Nyalayay (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, being aggrieved by the order dated 03-02-2020, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.18133/2014, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.
(2.)The petitioner Union challenged the alleged illegal action on the part of respondents in violating the statutory provisions on the basis of a fake and sham agreement of labour contract in which the respondent no.3 is shown as contractor and the provident fund of the members of the petitioner Union which was earlier deposited in the Provident Fund account of respondent no.2 has now been changed and Provident Fund contribution of the members of petitioner Union is deposited in the Provident Fund account of respondent no.3. The petitioner has also sought a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent no.1 to treat the members of the petitioner Union as employees of respondent no.2 and their Provident Fund contribution be deposited in the Provident Fund account of member earlier allotted to the respondent no.2.
(3.)A preliminary objection was raised by the respondents regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. It is stated that the answering respondent is an establishment and not amenable to writ jurisdiction . It was urged that alternative efficacious remedy under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is available to the petitioner. The petitioner had also earlier raised an industrial dispute which was registered as Reference No. 1/2008. The reference was answered by the authority and the award came to be passed on 25-09-2008. The learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the aspect of the availability of the alternative remedy and has dismissed the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to resort to the remedy of industrial adjudication in accordance with law. In substance, the appellant is raising grievance regarding change of the employer on the basis of alleged sham contract and deposit of Provident Fund contribution of the members of Union from Provident Fund account of respondent no.2 to the account of respondent no.3. Thus, there is dispute between the employee and the employer. The learned Single Judge has taken into consideration that whether the contract is sham or genuine has to be decided on the basis of the facts of the case. The dispute as to the contract between the respondent nos. 2 and 3 is sham and whether the members of Union are employees of respondent no.2 or respondent no.3 can only be challenged under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and would not be appropriate to be decided in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.