INDIAN EXPLOSIVES LIMITED Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order of the Industrial Tribunal (III) at Kanpur dated 15-6-1979 rejecting the petitioner's preliminary objections in adjudication case Nos. 14 and 16 of 1977.

(2.) The petitioner-company is registered under the Indian Factories Act, having its factory at Kanpur. It deals in manufacture and sale of chemical fertilizers. It has employed a number of workmen in its factory. The petitioners company maintains a canteen for its workmen. Those employed in the canteen raised a dispute claiming bonus for the year 1975-76. They further raised a dispute claiming wages and dearness allowance at the rate the management of the petitioner-company had been paying to other workmen employed in the factory. On failure of conciliation proceedings the State Government by its order dated 19th April, 1977 referred the dispute relating to payment of bonus of the workmen, for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal (III) at Kanpur, which was registered as Adjudication case No. 14 of 1977. By another order dated May 24, 1977 the State Government referred the other dispute also relating to payment of the wages and dearness allowance, to the Industrial Tribunal (III) at Kanpur for adjudication which was registered as Adjudication case No. 16 of 1977.

(3.) The petitioner-company appeared before the Tribunal and contested the disputes. It raised a number of preliminary objections, one of them being that the matter of dispute was not an industrial dispute as there was no relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner-company and those employed in the canteen as the canteen was being run by M/s. Gaylords a licensed contractor under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. The petitioner further asserted that in view of the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, the State Government had no jurisdiction to refer any dispute relating to contract labour for adjudication to any Industrial Court and the Industrial Tribunal had no jurisdiction to proceed further in the matter. The Industrial Tribunal framed preliminary issues on the aforesaid pleading of the petitioner. Parties produced evidence on the preliminary issues. After considering the evidence and hearing the arguments the Tribunal rejected the preliminary objections by its order dated 15-6-1979, it directed the cases to proceed on merits. Aggrieved, the petitioner-company has approached this Court, by means of this petition. The petitioner company has prayed for the issue of writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Tribunal dated 15-6-1979 as well as the orders of the State Government dated 19th April, 1977 and 24th May, 1977 referring the two disputes for adjudication of the Industrial Tribunal. The petitioner has further prayed relief for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Industrial Tribunal not to proceed with the adjudication proceedings pending before it.