1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. WRIT PETITION NO.2147 OF 2009 PRS Permacel Limited ..Petitioner. Vs. Johnson and Johnson Employees Union (Permacel Division) ..Respondent. .... Mr. J.P.Cama, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ajit Kapadia and Mr. G.S. Shetty i/b M/s. Crawford Bayley & Co. for the Petitioner. Mr. Arshad Shaikh with Mr. Mahesh Londhe i/b M/s. Sanjay Udeshi & Co. for the Respondent. .... CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 24th November, 2009. P.C. : 1. The Tribunal has framed the following issues in the reference : “(i) Whether the first party company proves that the reference is not maintainable; (ii) Whether the Second Party workmen prove that notice dated 29/07/2006 issued by the first party company is illegal, unjustified and it amounts to illegal lock-out; 2 (iii) Whether the Second Party workmen are entitled to the reliefs as prayed for; (iv) What Award/Order?” 2. The order of the Tribunal is questioned in these proceedings under Article 226. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the onus to prove that the reference is not maintainable has incorrectly been cast on the Petitioner and that the first issue should therefore be recast merely to state as to whether the reference is maintainable. At this stage it would be necessary to note that in paragraph 27 of the written statement filed on behalf of the management, maintainability of the reference was questioned by the management on several grounds which are set out in paragraph 2 thereof. The employer having raised on objection to the maintainability of the reference, the onus has correctly been cast upon the employer. It was next urged that the workmen having contended that the relationship of employer-employee exists between them and Johnson & Johnson, they are estopped from claiming to be the 3 workmen of the Petitioner. Counsel appearing for the workmen has submitted that the workmen are proceeding for the purposes of the reference on the basis that they are employees of the Petitioner to these proceedings. What the consequences of this should be either for this reference or for the companion reference involving Johnson & Johnson are matters to be decided by the Tribunal and on which no adjudication would be appropriate by this Court at the present stage. It is needless to add that all the objections which the Petitioner may have either by way of objections to the maintainability of the reference or on the merits of the reference are kept open to be decided by the Tribunal. The order framing issues does not warrant interference at this stage. The Petition is dismissed. It is common ground that period which was fixed by this Court for the disposal of the reference has expired. Time to decide the reference is extended by a further period of three months from today. ****