PARIHAR, J. - (1.) PETITIONER has challenged the notification dated 31. 7. 1996 issued by the State Government referring the dispute in regard to termination of services of respondent No. 2, the concerned workman, for adjudication to the Labour Court. The challenge has been made mainly on the ground that the concerned workman has been engaged by the contractor and has also been paid salary by the contractor.
(2.) AFTER having carefully gone through the material on record and considering the entire facts and circumstances of the present case, since the petitioner has an opportunity of raising all the objections before the Labour Court and further so many disputed questions of facts and law been involved, in my opinion, no interference is called for by this court at this stage in a matter of reference. It is for the Labour Court to decide the objections after taking evidence of both the parties. It may also be pertinent to mention here that in view of specific provisions under Section 2-g (iii) of the Industrial Disputes Act (Rajasthan Amendment), the owner of the industry has been treated as employer in case of contract labours also. In none of the judgments referred by the counsel for the petitioner, the specific provisions made in the Rajasthan Amendment Act in Section 2-g (iii) have been considered at all. It is unfortunate that while issuing notices to respondents on 4. 3. 1997, further proceedings were also stayed by this court. However, subsequently twice the writ petition was dismissed in default. Though restored subsequently. The adjudication before the Labour Court has been stalled for more than six years with a great agony and harassment to the concerned workman. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as having no merits. The petitioner shall pay a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the concerned workman. In the interest of justice, I deem it proper to direct the Labour Court also to expedite the case. .;