- (1.) HEARD counsel for the petitioner as well as State.
(2.) THE petitioner has come before this court to quash the order dated 16th November 2012 passed by the learned Labour Court, Jamshedpur in Reference Case No. 16/07 whereby the petitioner's application to modify the order dated 01st March 2012 earlier passed in the said reference case, has been rejected. Petitioner has further prayed for a direction to be issued upon M/s Tata Motors Ltd for payment of wages to the concerned workmen since October 2011 and further prayer has been made for directing the respondents to ensure payment of wages to the concerned workmen of Reference Case No. 16/07. Little background to the controversy of the case is necessary to appreciate the merits of the case. A reference was made on 05th November 2007 vide Reference Case No. 16/07 before the learned Labour Court, Jamshedpur. Under the said reference, the learned Labour Court, Jamshedpur has been asked to answer whether 68 workmen as enclosed in the list, are entitled to be regularized in the services of M/s Tata Motors Ltd? If not, what relief they are entitled to? These workmen had earlier made an application before the learned Labour Court, Jamshedpur for directing the respondents therein to pay wages to the concerned workmen as they had stopped paying wages to them. In such circumstances, learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur in Reference Case No. 16/07 had passed the order, operative part of the order is as follows: "Under the circumstances M/s Kay Pee and Company, Contractor under M/s Tata Motors Ltd. is directed not to stop the wages of the concerned workmen and also to make payment of their wages from October 2011. 
(3.) THE said order was however challenged by the Management of TELCO i.e. M/s Tata Motors Ltd before this Court in W.P.(L) No. 2625/12. This Court vide judgment and order dated 17th July 2012 dismissed the writ petition after making certain observations, which is quoted herein -below: "The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 1st March 2012 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur in Ref. Case No. 16 of 2007. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the petitioner -Management have denied the relationship of employer and employee, learned court below, during the pendency of the said reference, had directed them to pay wages to the concerned workmen from October, 2011. The respondents have opposed the writ petition and submitted that earlier there was a direction to the petitioner to pay wages to the concerned workmen, but they stopped paying wages and under that circumstance petition was filed before the Labour Court and on that petition the impugned order has been passed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order. The operative part of the order reads as under: "Under the circumstances M/s Kay Pee and Company, Contractor under M/s Tata Motors Ltd. is directed not to stop the wages of the concerned workmen and also to make payment of their wages from October 2011.  Learned Labour Court has also assigned reason for passing the said order. It has been mentioned that the Management has denied the claim of the concerned workmen and the relationship as employer and employees. Earlier there was an industrial dispute and it was held by this Court that the workmen were working in the Telco Scrapyard under M/s Kay Pee and Company and industrial dispute for regularization of the service of the concerned workman in M/s Tata Motors Ltd is pending in the present reference case. On plain reading of the order, it is clear that the direction has been made to M/s Kay Pee and Company, Contractor under M/s Tata Motors Ltd not to stop the wages of the concerned workmen and make payment of their wages from October 2011. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that M/s Tata Motors Ltd. is the principal employer under the Contract Labour Act and as such, the Company is liable to pay the wages. The petitioner -Management has vehemently denied the said submissions. Whether M/s Tata Motors Ltd is principal employer and whether there is any relationship of employer and employee between the concerned workmen and M/s Tata Motors Ltd. are yet to be decided in the reference case as mentioned in the impugned order. However, in the meanwhile, the interim order in the aforesaid term has been passed by the Labour Court for payment of wages to the concerned workmen. In view of the clear term, the order cannot be read to mean that in absence of M/s Kay Pee 7 Company, the payment has to be made by M/s Tata Motors Ltd. I, therefore, find no cause in the writ petition to raise any grievance against the said order. No ground, as such, has been made out for the reliefs prayed for in this writ petition. This writ petition is dismissed in the light of the aforementioned observations. ;