JUDGMENT - M.B. GHODESWAR, J.:---The petitioner had challenged the award of Labour Court dated 30-7-1979 on various grounds. 2. The petitioner was a Railway contractor and he had taken contract of loading and unloading of coal and collecting cinder with the South Eastern Railways for a period of one year. The petitioner had engaged labourers for collecting cinder form ashes and he used to supply labourers at the rates fixed by the Railways. That the respondent Sitabai Atmaram was working as a coolie with the petitioner, the immediate employer. The respondent alleged that her services were terminated on 16-1-1977 by the petitioner and hence she raised industrial dispute regarding her dismissal before the Conciliation Officer. Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Nagpur. Under the powers conferred on him by the Maharashtra Government, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Nagpur referred the following dispute to the Labour Court, Nagpur; "Smt. Nagarare, who has been terminated from the employment of M/s. Jugele, Railway Contractor, Nagpur, should be reinstated with payment of back wages and continuity of services w.e.f. 11-1-1977." This reference was tried by 2nd Labour Court, Nagpur. 3. The petitioner resisted the claim of the respondent No. 1 on many ground including the ground that the reference was not competent and the Labour Court had no jurisdiction, as the appropriate Government was the Central Government. Oral and documentary evidence was adduced. The learned Labour Court had adjudicated the dispute and passed an award on 30-7-1979. The learned Labour Court has held that the order of termination of respondent No. 1 by petitioner was illegal. Some monetary relief was granted but the relief of reinstatement was not granted, because the contract period was only for a year. The learned Labour Court has held that the reference was competent as there was a dispute in between the respondent No. 1 and petitioner, the immediate employer. The learned Labour Court also held that had the dispute been raised by the respondent No. 1 with Railways, the principal employer, then the reference by Central Government would have been competent. This reasoning does not appear to be sound. Apparently there is error. 4. The learned Labour Court also held that had the dispute been raised by the respondent No. 1 with Railways, the principal employer, then the reference by Central Government would have been competent. This reasoning does not appear to be sound. Apparently there is error. 4. Shri Trivedi, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has stated that all payments as a result of monetary relief granted by the Labour Court have been paid by the petitioner to the respondent No. 1, he does not dispute about the monetary reliefs granted to the respondent. But he contends that in principle the reference by the State Government in this dispute was not competent and, therefore, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to try the dispute. He insists to have decision of this Court on this point. There is substantial force in this contention. 5. It is admitted position that the respondent No. 1 was working with the petitioner and the nature of work was under the Railway premises. The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, is applicable in this case. The South Eastern Railway was the principal employer and the petitioner was the immediate employer of the respondent No. 1. Reliance is placed on the decision in the case of (Ambika Prasad and others v. State of Orissa and others)1, 1974 Labour Industrial Cases 805. It is held in this case that the activity of the labourers was connected with mines and so the Central Government would be the appropriate Government to refer the dispute. Reference made by the State Government would be without jurisdiction. Another case relied on is (Continental Construction (P) Ltd. Visakapatnam v. The Government of India and others)2, 1977 Labour and Industrial Cases, 1199. Hence the appropriate Government to refer the matter in this case is the Central Government. The impugned award passed by the Labour Court, Nagpur, is bad in law. It requires to be quashed and set aside. However, there cannot be any refund of payment made by the petitioner to the respondent No. 1 as fairly stated by Shri Trivedi, Advocate. 6. In the result, the petition is allowed. Rule accordingly, No order as to refund and costs. Petition allowed. -----