1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1770 OF 2002 Ramesh Dinkar Shelke & Ors. ....Petitioners V/s. National Chemical Laboratories and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.K.S. Bapat, for the petitioners. Mr.K.P. Anilkumar, for the respondents. CORAM :P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATE : JULY 13, 2009 P.C. 1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 24-04-2001 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai, in Original Application No.189 of 2000, by which the Tribunal has held that it has no jurisdiction as the Tribunal has found that the concerned applicants are the employees of the contractor. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners, during the course of hearing, submitted that the contract is camouflage and that in substance petitioners are the direct employees of respondent No.1. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners would like to raise appropriate 2 industrial dispute in this behalf. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondent No.1 cannot be said to be an industry. However, on this point, the learned counsel for the petitioners asserted that the respondent No.1 can be said to be an industry. 3. At this stage, without expressing any opinion in any manner, since the petitioners want to raise an industrial dispute, permission to approach appropriate forum under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, is granted to the petitioners. The petitioners may make appropriate application in this behalf within a period of four weeks from today. The Conciliation Officer thereafter, may submit his failure report within a period of two weeks thereafter. It will be open for the appropriate Government to consider whether the dispute is required to be referred to the appropriate Court or not. In case, the dispute is referred to the appropriate Court, it will be open to the petitioners to apply for interim relief before the appropriate Court, as the same is already in existence in this petition. In such an eventuality, the appropriate Government may refer the dispute to the appropriate Court within a period of four weeks from receipt of the report from the Conciliation Officer and interim relief granted earlier to continue for a further period of three months. In the meanwhile, the petitioners may seek interim relief from the appropriate Court where the dispute is referred. However, if the 3 appropriate Government declines to refer the dispute to the appropriate Court, then such decision may be communicated to petitioner No.1 and intimation to petitioner No.1 shall be treated as valid intimation to all the petitioners. Interim relief which is already in existence to continue for a further period of four weeks from such intimation. In case, the appropriate Government decided not to refer the dispute to the appropriate Court, then it will be open to the petitioners to take appropriate recourse in accordance with law. It is clarified that simply by extending the interim relief which is in existence as on today, it should not mean that this Court has found prima facie case in favour of the petitioners. In short, whether there is a prima facie case or not or whether interim relief is required to be granted or not is the question which is left to the appropriate Court and the said aspect is to be decided on its own merit and as per law. The observations of the Central Administrative Tribunal may not be taken in to consideration while deciding the dispute, in case the same is referred to the appropriate Court for its decision. 4. Subject to what is stated above, the writ petition is disposed of. ( R.M.SAVANT, J. ) (P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.)