(1.) THE petitioner is a Government owned company. It assails an order passed by the government of Andhra Pradesh, in g. O. Rt. No. 2150, dated 28-10-2005, making a reference of the dispute, raised by the h. M. T Contract Labour's Union, the 3rd respondent, to the Labour Court-l, at hyderabad. It also challenges the order dated 30-06-2005, passed by the Labour Court, in i. A. No. 3 of 2006 in I. D. No. 201 of 2005, directing reinstatement of the members of the 3rd respondent-Union.
(2.) THE 3rd respondent initiated proceedings before the Conciliation Officer, stating that the petitioner did not regularize the services of the Contract Labourers, though they worked for several years. On the report submitted by the Conciliation Officer, indicating failure of his efforts, the 1st respondent referred the dispute to the Labour Court, under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act'), and the same was taken up as I. D. No. 201 of 2005. The 3rd respondent filed an application under section 33 (1) (a) of the Act, with a prayer to direct the petitioner to reinstate 26 workmen, who were said to have been retrenched, during the pendency of the conciliation proceedings. The petitioner resisted the same. The Labour court passed a detailed order dated 30-06-2006, allowing the LA.
(3.) THE petitioner contends that the very reference made by the 1st respondent is illegal, inasmuch as there did not exist any relationship of employer and employee, between itself and the members of the 3rd respondent-Union. An objection is also raised about the Labour Contractor, not being made as party. It is urged that the reference made by the 1st respondent is contrary to law, and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court. So far as the order passed by the Labour court in I. A. No. 3 of 2006 is concerned, it is stated that the application itself was not maintainable, since it was not in relation to any alteration of conditions, during the pendency of the I. D.