1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.477 OF 2001 Petroleum Employees Union : Petitioners. Versus Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & ors. : Respondents. Mr. Suresh S Pakale for the Petitioners Mr. Birendra Saraf i/by Udwadia, Udeshi & Berjis for the Respondents. CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.M.SAVANT, JJ DATED : APRIL 15, 2009 P.C. 1. This Petition is filed by the Petroleum Employees Union challenging that the workmen whose names have been listed at Exhibit-A to the Petition are the regular employees of the Respondent No.1-Company by virtue of the Notification dated 29th June 1999 issued by the Central Government under Section 10(1) of the 2 Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. The Petitioners Union also prays that the concerned employees should be absolved by the Company in their employment. 2. It is pointed out before us by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties that during pendency of this Petition at the instance of the Petitioner-Union the Ministry of Labour/Shram Mantralaya, New Delhi by its decision dated 16/12/2004 has made a reference for adjudication under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and accordingly the Central Government has referred the said dispute for adjudication to the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court No.2, Mumbai before whom the dispute is pending. 3. Mr.Saraf, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents submits that the reference has been made on a wrong premise. He further submits that even the Petitioners Union has made a wrong representation before the concerned authorities that in view 3 of the directions given by this Court in the instant writ petition and other writ petitions, the matter is required to be referred to the appropriate court under Section 10 of the said Act. 4. Mr.Pakale, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners Union submits that the reference is not made in view of the directions given by the High Court and it was independently made. He further submits that the High Court has never given any direction for asking the competent authorities to refer the matter. 5. It is true that so far as this writ petition is concerned, it was separated from other writ petitions. However, it is not in dispute that now the appropriate Government has already referred the matter for adjudication under Section 10 to the Industrial Tribunal Court No.2 Mumbai. Since the matter is already pending before the competent court, this petition no longer survives. Mr.Pakale the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners Union states that he would like to withdraw this petition. We record the submission made by Mr.Saraf 4 the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents that the dispute which is referred under Section 10 to the appropriate court should not be treated as if it is referred in view of any directions given by this Court in the writ petition. We accordingly make it clear that if the issue raised in this writ petition is referred by the competent authorities, it should be treated as if it is referred independently without there being any directions from this Court in that behalf. Such reference should be treated as independent reference under Section 10. It will not mean that this Court suggested that this issue is required to be referred by competent authorities to the appropriate court. It is needless to say that the Industrial Tribunal Labour Court No.2 Mumbai before whom the dispute is referred shall adjudicate the said dispute on its own merits independently without taking into account any directions given by this Court on the basis of which the reference is made by the competent authorities to it. The tribunal shall decide and adjudicate the dispute as per the evidence on record after hearing both the sides as per law. 5 6. The learned counsel for the Respondents Mr.Saraf further submits that the Supreme Court has set aside the Notification which is the subject matter of this petition which notification is under the Contract Labour Act . He further submits that in view of the said decision of the Supreme Court, this petition also no longer survives. As Mr.Pakale, the learned counsel for the Petitioners Union is withdrawing this petition in view of the subsequent developments, this submission of Mr.Saraf the learned counsel for the Respondents is also academic. 7. Subject to the above, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Rule is discharged. 8. In view of the instant order, the Notice of Motion No.97 of 2005 does not survive and it stands disposed of accordingly. [R.M.SAVANT,J] [P.B.MAJMUDAR,J] 6