- (1.) The petitioner - Manager, Ultratech Cement Ltd., unit Aditya Cement Works, Adityapuram, District Chittorgarh has filed the present writ petition before this Court being aggrieved by the part of the impugned notification Annex.1 dtd.13.6.2011 of the appropriate Government referring industrial dispute between the respondents - workmen and the petitioner - Company and the respondent No.3 (contractor for short) under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 after conciliation proceedings between the parties failed before the learned Dy. Labour Commissioner, Chittorgarh vide order dtd.27.1.2011 (Annex.12).
(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Harish Singh Purohit vehemently submitted that the respondents - workmen were engaged and employed by the respondent No.3 - Contractor M/s Jagdish Trading Company only Cement Loading Contractor, Site Aditya Cement Works (UltraTech Cement Ltd.), Adityapuram, District Chittorgarh and they were never employed by the petitioner - Company by the petitioner - Company - Aditya Cement and therefore, while making reference of industrial dispute upon failure of conciliation proceedings, the competent authority of appropriate Government could not have referred the question No.1 of the tenor and nature as to whether the petitioner - company or the respondent No.3 - contractor was employer ( ) of the respondent - workmen and since admittedly the dispute was only with regard to payment of E-grade wages as recommended by the Cement Wage Board which dispute could arise only between the respondents - workmen and their employer, respondent No.3 Contractor M/s Jagdish Trading Company, therefore, the reference of question No.1 as framed is illegal and that shows non-application of mind on the part of the competent authority and reference to this extent deserves to be quashed by this Court. Hence the present writ petitions.
(3.) On the other hand, Mr. Mahesh Bora, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Nishant Boara appearing on behalf of the respondents - workmen opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner - company and submitted that this contention of petitioner - company was also raised before the Conciliation Officer, also, but since the conciliation between the three parties, namely, petitioner company, Contractor and workmen failed as a natural corollary, the industrial dispute was referred by the State Government to the Industrial Tribunal, Bhilwara as required under Section 10 of the Act. He also submitted that the petitioner - company was the Principal employer qua the workmen for the purpose of payment of E-grade wages for which dispute was raised and therefore, the petitioner - company cannot be permitted to raise this issue at this stage that the reference of question No.1 is illegal. He however, submitted that on the basis of evidence to be led by the parties, it is always open for the petitioner - company to contend before the Industrial Tribunal and establish that they are not principal employer of the respondents - workmen, but since the said issue is yet to be decided by the Industrial Tribunal, the reference of question No.1 in Annex.1 notificationdtd.13.6.2011 cannot be said to be illegal. He submitted that it would be premature for this Court to quash the question No.1 in Annex.1 notification dtd.13.6.2011 which naturally arises out of failure of conciliation proceedings vide Annex.12 dtd.27.1.2011.;