IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 27418 of 2007 Between: Sri Vijaya Visakha Milk PRoducers company Limited, (A Company Registered under Companies Act) rep.by General Manager (Personnel * Administration) Ch.Vijaya Rao, S/o. Late Appa Rao, aged 55 years Visakhapatnam -530012 ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Special Chief Secretary to Government Labour Employment Training & Factories, (Lab.I) Department, Government of Andhra pradesh , Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 Industrial Tribunal cum labour Court, rep.by its Chairman & Presiding officer, Opp:District Courts Complex, Visakhapatnam 3 The Visakha Cooperative Dairy Contract Labour Union rep.by its General Secretary, Molli Appalanaidu, Chinagadili Mandal, Visakhapatnam District 4 M.V.Ramakrisha S/o.Srinivasa Rao D.No.1-1-173, Vivekananda Colony Akkireddipalem Visakhapatnam 530012 5 B.A.Naidu S/o.Demudu Door No.1-1-18(2) Akkireddipalem, BHPV Post, Visakhapatnam 530012 .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue any writ order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring G.O.Rt.No.2018 dated 5.9.2007 of the 1st respondent resulting in Industrial Dispute No.81 of 2007 on the file of the 2nd respondent is arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction and nullify the same. Counsel for the Petitioner : DR.P.B.VIJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court at the stage of admission made the following O R D E R : This Writ Petition, to my mind, is a misconceived one. The State Government, through their G.O.Rt.No.2018 Labour Employment Training & Factories (Lab.I) Department, dated 5th September 2007, made a reference to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam to adjudicate an existing dispute of the workmen said to have been engaged through a contractor by Visakha Cooperative Dairy. Dr. P.B. Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Limited v. National Union Waterfront Workers[1], contends that until and unless a notification under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 is issued, the question of regularization of the services of the contract labour in any employment would not arise. The learned counsel has pointed out that the contract labour cannot be construed as the employees of Visakha Cooperative Dairy. In fact, Visakha Cooperative Dairy has entered into a contract for supplying the manpower and it is the contractor, who is the employer of such contract labour but not Visakha Cooperative Dairy. These questions obviously are required to be adjudicated by the Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, but not by this Court at this stage. These matters will depend upon the evidence that is collected by the said Court and based upon such evidence, the findings are liable to be arrived at by that Court. If any of the parties seek to implead any other agency, which is considered and construed as a proper and necessary party to a lis, it is certainly open to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court to examine the same and allow such impleadment. I have no doubt in my mind that the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court would pass appropriate orders for impleadment of all such necessary and proper parties to the lis, should it be required. Leaving all questions open for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, I do not consider it appropriate to either admit or adjudicate the present Writ Petition, for, the reference made by the State Government, under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is a perfectly legitimate exercise, inasmuch as the State Government is the appropriate Government to make such references under Section 10 of the said Act and it is for the Industrial Tribunal to collect the necessary evidence and adjudicate the disputes. At this stage, no opinion can be pronounced either on merits or the lack of it in the claim made by the writ petitioner. With this, the present Writ Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 10th June 2009 ksld ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK} [1] 2001 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 1121