Shiv Kumar Sharma, J. - (1.) Challenge in these four appeals is to the judgment dated July 16, 1993 of the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petitions of the appellant company were dismissed with the following directions : "On the basis of the above discussion, it is held that the provisions of the Industrial Disputes (Rajasthan Amendment) Act No.34 if 1958 are void to the extent it contains the definition of the 'workmen' which is inconsistent with the definition of the said terms as contained in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as amended by Central Amendment Act No. 46 of 1982. It is further held that in view of serious dispute between the parties on the question as to whether 1 the concerned workman is employed of the petitioner company or an employee of the contractor such disputed question can appropriately be decided only on the basis of oral and documentary evidence which the parties may lead before an appropriate adjudicatory forum constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1 1947 and there is no justification for quashing the order of reference passed by the Government in each of these petitions. On the basis of the above discussions, these writ petitions are dismissed. It is however ordered that the Labour Court Kota shall frame a preliminary issue about the status of the workman involved in each of these petitions. The Labour Court shall record a finding on that issue by considering the rival evidence. In case, it comes to the conclusion that the workman concerned was in fact an employee of the contractor it shall pass the award that the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act are not applicable. On the other hand if the Labour Court comes to the conclusion that the workman concerned was an employee of the company, it shall proceed to adjudicate on the propriety and legality of the termination of service of such workman. Parties are left to bear their own costs.''
(2.) Contextual facts depict that the State Government vide Notification dated December 26. 1988 made reference in the following manner ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... In the complaint before the Conciliation Officer it was submitted by the respondent Instrumentation Karamchari Union that the concerned workman became workman of the appellant company (in short the Company) by virtue of the Rajasthan Amendment Act, 1958 whereby clause (iii) was added in section 2(g) and similar amendment in section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short ID Act). The company in its reply averred that the State Government had no jurisdiction to make reference since the workman was employee of the contractor and not of the company.
(3.) The company challenged the validity of the aforequoted reference before the learned Single Judge by filing writ petitions which were decided as indicated above.;