IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.634 OF 2001 Janavadi General Kamgar Mazdoor Union ..... Petitioner V/s. The Central Institute of Fisheries Education and Ors. ..... Respondents Ms.Ranjana Todankar with Mr.Jaiprakash Sawant, for the petitioner. Mr.S.S.Karkera, for respondent No.1 Ms.Lata S. Desai, for respondent No.3. Mr.N.D.Sharma, for respondent – Union of India. CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATED : 16TH APRIL, 2009. P.C. 1. This petition is filed by a Registered Trade Union on behalf of the members of the Union, whose names have been placed at Exh.A to the petition. There are 13 security guards on whose behalf the Union has filed this petition. It is prayed by the petitioner-Union that the workmen at Exh.A, should be absorbed by way of direct employment of the respondent No.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the concerned workmen have been appointed through the contractor, but the said contract labour is sham and bogus. It is pointed out to the Court that subsequently, the petitioner-Union had approached the appropriate Government for referring the dispute to the appropriate Court under the Industrial Dispute 2 Act. A copy of the order dated 19-03-2009 passed by the Ministry of Labour, has been placed on record today, by which the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, refused to refer the said dispute for adjudication on the ground that the present writ petition is pending. 2. In our view, the question as to whether the contract labour is sham and bogus and whether the concerned workmen are the direct employees, are the questions which can be decided by the competent Court and this Court cannot decide such type of disputed questions in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In our considered opinion, the Ministry of Labour should have referred the matter to the appropriate Court under Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act. 3. The learned Advocate for the Union of India, states that he has no objection if appropriate direction in this behalf is granted. The learned Advocate for the respondent No.1 states that this Court cannot decide such questions in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Considering the said aspect and considering the fact that the Conciliation Officer has already submitted the failure report, the respondent No.2 is now directed to refer the matter to the competent Court as per Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act. The respondent No.2 shall now refer the matter to the appropriate Court at the earliest and after the 3 matter is referred to the appropriate Court as per the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act, the petitioner-Union will be at liberty to apply for interim relief and if any, such application should be preferred within a period of two weeks from the date of reference to the appropriate Court. The appropriate Court thereafter, shall decide the application for interim relief on its own merits after hearing the parties. Till the appropriate Court takes decision on the question of interim relief, till then, the interim relief granted by this Court is ordered to be continued. The respondent No.1 henceforth, shall directly pay salary/wages to the employees on whose behalf the petition is filed. Needless to say that if any application about granting of interim relief comes before the appropriate Court, the Court shall decide the same without being influenced in any manner by the earlier orders passed by this Court in this behalf and the said question should be decided independently and as per the available evidence on record. Subject to what is stated above, the petition is disposed of. Rule discharged. ( R.M.SAVANT, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )