B. S. KAPADIA, J. ( 1 ) THE subject-matter of the present petition is the reference made by the Dy. Commissioner of Labour Ahmedabad vide order dated 10-6-1991. By the said order the respondent No. 4-Dy. Commissioner of Labour exercising the powers under Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has made a reference to the Industrial Tribunal Ahmedabad consisting of Shri V. H. Thakore for the terms of reference referred to in the Schedule thereto on his being of the opinion that the matters referred to in the Schedule are connected with the industrial disputes between the Physical Research Laboratory (PRL) Ahmedabad and its workmen. The points referred to in the said Schedule are: (1) Where the lady workers who are 14 in number whose names are stated just below the Schedule can be said to be permanent workers of the PRL or not ? (2) Whether said 14 lady workers are entitled to get wages and other emoluments payable to permanent employees of Class-IV working in the PRL on completion of 240 days service ? copy of the aforesaid reference is annexed as Annexure-M to the petition. ( 2 ) THE petitioner-PRL has in this petition prayed for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ direction or order directing the respondent No. 4 to treat the impugned order of reference (Annexure-M) as cancelled and/or to quash the order of reference. The petitioner has also sought for the relief of issuing appropriate writ direction or order prohibiting all further proceedings pursuant to or in implementation of the order of reference. The petitioner has also sought for a direction or order restraining the Industrial Tribunal Court No. 3 Ahmedabad from proceeding further with the proceedings before it pursuant to the reference made to it under Section 10 of the I. D. Act as per the impugned order of reference dated 10-6-1991 (Annexure-M to the petition ). ( 3 ) THE facts giving rise to the present petition can be briefly stated as follows :4 The PRL-petitioner is a Research Institute. It employs regular employees only after giving regular advertisement and after taking interviews. If the candidates appeared at the interview are found suitable they are appointed. That very policy is adopted for employing workers for the purpose of cleaning and sweeping. It employs regular employees only after giving regular advertisement and after taking interviews. If the candidates appeared at the interview are found suitable they are appointed. That very policy is adopted for employing workers for the purpose of cleaning and sweeping. ( 4 ) THE aforesaid 14 ladies who have got the reference made were never engaged by PRL nor are they on the roll of PRL. They have not been issued any attendance card by PRL. It is categorically stated by the petitioner that there is no relationship of employer and employees between PRL and said lady workers. It is the further say of the petitioner that the Organisation-Self Employed Women Association (SEWA) by its letter dated 31 offered to undertake the jobs mentioned in the said letter by accepting an amount of Rs. 36 0 plus Rs. 12 0 The only condition put forth by SEWA was that pro-rata monthly payment should be made on basis of the charges mentioned above. In the said letter dated 31-3-1984 the work to be carried out for cleaning and sweeping the PRL staff quarters and camps are separately mentioned such as internal cleaning sweeping garbage collection washing of toilet/washing of basin area. After writing the said letter the representatives of SEWA had personal discussion with the officers of PRL and confirmed that said job work will be undertaken by SEWA Saundarya Safai Utkarsh Seva Sahakari Mandali through its members. It was also stated that the total amount payable for the period from 1-5-1984 to 30-4-1985 will be Rs. 28 200 According to the petitioner the offer made by SEWA to do the job work through the said Mandali was accepted by it by issuing the work order on 24-2-1984. Said contract was for the period upto 30-4-1985. In the said work order the details of the work covered under the job work terms and conditions of the job etc. were also clearly mentioned. ( 5 ) SAID Mandali is registered on 13-3-1986. The job work entrusted to SEWA was thereafter transferred to the said Mandali and the Mandali got the work done through its members. In the said work order the details of the work covered under the job work terms and conditions of the job etc. were also clearly mentioned. ( 5 ) SAID Mandali is registered on 13-3-1986. The job work entrusted to SEWA was thereafter transferred to the said Mandali and the Mandali got the work done through its members. It is stated in the petition that members of the cooperative society are not employees of the Mandali much less employees of the petitioner and that at no point of time the petitioner has made any payment to any of the said 14 ladies but it has been making payment to the Mandali the respondent No. 2 herein. It is further stated that the Mandali is entitled to execute the work through its members and it has been doing so and that the amounts which are paid to the Mandali are debited to the account of the Mandali and no amount was ever paid to any individual lady worker and that the job work undertaken by the Mandali is done by it through its members and such members are not employees of the PRL. ( 6 ) IT is also pointed out in the petition that said lady workers have not signed any register or muster roll of PRL and they have not been issued any attendance card at any point of time; that they are directly under the control of the Mandali the respondent No. 2; that the Mandali may require them to execute the job work at one place or the other and that the Mandali used to rotate them as indicated in the papers filed by the Mandali before the Conciliation Officer. It further stated in the petition that the fact is that the Mandali has undertaken the job work and job work is executed by the Mandali through its members and it is an essential feature of the arrangement between the Mandali and PRL. ( 7 ) IT is also pointed out in the petition that in spite of these facts these 14 ladies filed a writ petition in this Court being Special Civil Application No. 4928 of 1990 for the relief that they may be declared as direct employees of the PRL and that they are entitled to all the privileges of similarly placed employees and also for various other incidental reliefs. The said Special Civil Application was opposed by PRL. Not only that but the respondent No. 2-Mandali joined in the said petition and opposed very admission and grant of interim relief. By the order dated 27 passed by the Division Bench of this Court the said petition came to be withdrawn on a statement that the petitioners will make a prayer before the appropriate authority to make reference of the disputes sought to be raised in the said Special Civil Application and they did not want to press the petition and intended to withdraw the same. Accordingly the said petition was disposed of as withdrawn. Only status quo was extended for two months from the date of the order. It appears that another petition being Special Civil Application No. 3107 of 1991 was moved before this Court but that was also withdrawn on 17-6-1991. ( 8 ) IT is also pointed out in the petition that in spite of the aforesaid facts the respondent No. 1 through its General Secretary raised a demand by its letter dated 4-3-1991 (Annexure-G ). The demand made was that the 14 ladies mentioned in the said letter should be made permanent employees of PRL and they should be paid wages and all other service benefits at par with other class 1 employees of PRL. It is also pointed out in the petition that it was never their case on the ground that said 14 ladies were permanent employees of PRL. The respondent No. 3-Assistant Labour Commissioner unilaterally entered into conciliation proceedings and fixed various dates of hearing. On 11/03/1991 the respondent No. 1 filed justification statement (Annexure-H) to the petition. On 21-3-1991 the PRL submitted its written statement before the Conciliation Officer giving all the factual background and contending that there is no question of making any reference. The respondent No. 2 also made an application for being joined as party before the Conciliation Officer. The respondent No. 2 was made party before the Conciliation Officer and accordingly the respondent No. 2 had filed its written statement on 4-4-1991 (Annexure-J) to the petition. The respondent No. 2 also made an application for being joined as party before the Conciliation Officer. The respondent No. 2 was made party before the Conciliation Officer and accordingly the respondent No. 2 had filed its written statement on 4-4-1991 (Annexure-J) to the petition. It is important to note that the Mandali has clearly pointed out in the written statement that the Mandali is a registered Cooperative Society with specific objective of providing certain (minimum) source of income to the self-employed women who belonged to lower starta of the society and also collectively pool their services cooperatively in exchnge for the best working conditions and rates that could be had; that the said 14 ladies were the shareholders of the Mandalis that a group insurance from the Life Insurance Corporation of India was taken which included these 14 ladies; that these 14 ladies received profits as members of the Mandali; that they were the signatories to the very formation of the Mandali and its bye-laws and that some of them like Dhanlaxmibehn have also individually taken loan of Rs. 2 0 / - from the Cooperative Bank. Similarly worker Manubehn had also taken such a loan from the Cooperative Bank as per the privilege enjoyed by them with the Mandali standing as Guarantor. ( 9 ) IN the said written statement filed by the Mandali it was specifically pointed out that the future of the Labour Cooperative will be seriously threatend if these ladies are considered as direct employees of the PRL since they could not have both status as direct employees of the PRL and status of member of a cooperative society for the same work. The Mandali also produced various documents along with its written statement to clearly point out that these ladies could never be treated as employees of PRL. Along with the written statement the Mandali also produced a letter dated 21-6-1989 (Annexure-K to the petition) by which the Mandali was informed by the Labour Commissioner himself that they need not take out any licence under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 since the Mandali is a cooperative organisation and there is no relationship of employer and employees between self-employed women who were members of the Mandali and PRL. In pursuance of the same a request was made by the petitioner to drop it from the conciliation proceedings. In pursuance of the same a request was made by the petitioner to drop it from the conciliation proceedings. Said letter addressed to the Conciliation Officer on 4-4-1991 is annexed as Annexure-L to the petition. Still however the aforesaid reference is made to the Industrial Tribunal. ( 10 ) PETITIONER as per the courts order dated 3 has amended the petition by incorporation para-4. 8 of the petition. By the said amendment the petitioner pointed out that it had filed a caveat application in the Industrial Tribunal to the effect that it may be heard if respondent No. 1 approached the Tribunal for any interim relief and requests for any order in the reference proceedings. The petitioner was served with an application for interim relief by the respondent No. 1 and the petitioner therefore appeared before the Industrial Tribunal Court No. 3 Ahmedabad and filed its reply dated 8-7-1992 opposing the grant of interim relief. The Industrial Tribunal fixed the matter on 18-7-1991 for hearing of interim relief application and granted status quo till 22-7-1991. ( 11 ) THE aforesaid petition was filed on 16-7-1991. On 17-7-1991 the Division Bench consisting of Justice G. T. Nanavati and Justice J. M. Panchal passed the following order :rule. Ad interim stay in terms of para-9 (c ). By the said order the further proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal Court No. 3 Ahmedabad which were numbered as Reference (IT) No. 329 of 1991 were stayed. ( 12 ) BEFORE the said ad interim relief could come up for confirmation the first respondent-Union appeared through its learned Advocate and filed an application being Civil Application No. 1355 of 1991 for vacating the ad interim relief. Said Civil Application was placed before the Division Bench consisting of Justice S. B. Majmudar and Justice M. S. Parikh. Said Division bench by its order dated 11-9-1991 passed an order vacating the ad interim relief granted on 17-7-1991 subject to the rider that in case ultimately any award is passed by the Tribunal in the Reference against the petitioner the same would not be implemented for six weeks of its publication and it would be open to the petitioner to produce said award in the proceedings in the main petition and apply for amending the petition for bringing it on record and also for inserting appropriate averments for challenging the said award in accordance with law. However so far as the said order vacating the ad interim relief is concerned as the petitioner wanted to approach the Supreme Court against the same the said Division Bench granted status quo regarding service conditions of 14 ladies for six weeks from the date of the said order and also stayed the operation of its order for four weeks and the order of status quo granted earlier stood extended for ten weeks. ( 13 ) THE Honourable Supreme Court of India by its order passed in Special Leave Petitions No. 15666 of 1991 and 16244 of 1991 after fixing up the schedule for filing the affidavits counter-affidavits additional affidavits etc. ordered that this Court will take up the Special Civil Application for hearing and final disposal at an early date preferably on or before 31 The Honble Supreme Court has further directed that in the meantime in so far as the employment of the workers is concerned status quo will be maintained and the proceedings pending before the Industrial Tribunal will await the decision of this Court and further directions that this Court may give while disposing of the writ petition. With the said observations the Honble Supreme Court disposed of the Special Leave Petitions. ( 14 ) IT may be mentioned that the Physical Research Laboratory Employees Union had initially filed affidavit-in-reply so far as the interim relief is concerned. The respondent No. 1-Union had also subsequently filed further affidavit-in-reply after the aforesaid order of the Supreme Court. The first affidavit-in-reply on behalf of the Union was filed by one Shri M. P. Devmurati General Secretary of the said Union. The respondent No. 1-Union had also subsequently filed further affidavit-in-reply after the aforesaid order of the Supreme Court. The first affidavit-in-reply on behalf of the Union was filed by one Shri M. P. Devmurati General Secretary of the said Union. It is inter alia contended therein that this is not a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; that the facts have been intentionally suppressed by the petitioner; that the petitioner has tried to obtain stay against the interim order passed by the Industrial Tribunal without mentioning that such an order is passed by the Industrial Tribunal; that the petitioner has prayed for interim relief in general terms as if the petitioner is only claiming interim relief of further proceedings but in fact the interim relief prayed for by the petitioner has the effect of granting stay against the interim relief already granted by the Industrial Tribunal in the presence of the petitioner and the respondents and therefore petitioner is guilty of suppression; that question whether PRL is an industry or not is not relevant; that in view of the contentions raised by the petitioner in the earlier petition being Special Civil Application No. 4928 of 1990 the petitioner is not justified in challenging the order of reference on the basis that industrial dispute does not exist; that industrial dispute is property legally and validly referred by the authority; that interpretation of Section 2 (k) of the Industrial Disputes Act is not correct interpretation put forward by the petitioner; that in reality there is relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner and the concerned 14 ladies and that whether any such relationship exists or not cannot be adjudicated in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as it involves disputed questions of facts. Relying on the decision reported in 1990 (1) GLH 164 (which has been subsequently reversed by the Supreme Court in Dinanaths case) it is submitted in the said affidavit-in-reply that the concerned workmen would automatically become the employees of the principal employer; that creation of Saundarya Safai Mandal as a contractor for supplying labourer is a camouflage and that these 14 ladies are employed by the PRL and there is relationship of employer and employees between the PRL and the said 14 ladies and that all the contentions raised in the present petition can be raised before the Industrial Tribunal and in fact such contentions are already raised by the petitioner in written statement dated 9-7-1991 filed in the Industrial Tribunal. ( 15 ) IN the second affidavit-in-reply filed by Shri R. V. Shah Vice-President of the respondent No. 1 all the contentions raised in the first affidavit- in-reply filed on behalf of the Union have been reiterated. It is further contended in the said affidavit-in-reply that at the most SEWA became an agency through which the payment to the ladies were made but this can in no way obliterate the employer-employee relationship between PRL and the concerned lady workers and that such mode of payment is really a device to hide the real relationships but when the veil is lifted the irrefutable employer-employee relationship is revealed. It is admitted in the said affidavit that the Union had made demand at Annexure-G to the petition but as PRL did not reply to the said demand the Union requested the Conciliation Officer to intervene in the dispute and that the Unions demand that the concerned lady workers should be made permanent employees of PRL clearly reflects the demand for the status of permanent workmen of PRL though they are doing the work of permanent nature regularly from 1984 onwards. It is further contended in the said affidavit that the order of reference is perfectly legal and valid and it is not true to suggest that reference was made by the Dy. Labour Commissioner without looking into or appreciating the evidence on record. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to any of the prayers asked for and the petition deserves to be rejected. ( 16 ) SIMILARLY the respondent No. 2- Mandali also initially filed affidavit- in-reply on the point of interim relief. Labour Commissioner without looking into or appreciating the evidence on record. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to any of the prayers asked for and the petition deserves to be rejected. ( 16 ) SIMILARLY the respondent No. 2- Mandali also initially filed affidavit- in-reply on the point of interim relief. but subsequently it filed rejoinder to the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent No. 1. In the first affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent Mo. 1-Mandali through its Secretary Manjulabehn Vaghela it is inter alia contended that the present reference (IT) No. 329 of 1991 pending before the Industrial Tribunal is bad illegal and without authority of law and that same is not maintainable; that the reference is not maintainable because Agreement for cleaning is made with the respondent No. 2-Mandali and not with the 13 women alleged to be the employees of PRL; and that 13 women are self-employed members of the Mandali and therefore there cannot be any question of employer-employee relationship either between 13 women and the Mandali or between the 13 women and PRL. Many details as to how said ladies are working in the Mandali are given in the said affidavit. Many details as to how said ladies are working in the Mandali are given in the said affidavit. It is further submitted in the said affidavit that the respondent No. 1-Union is guilty of suppression as in the earlier petition which was filed by the PRL-Union the Mandali was deliberately not made party knowing full well that orders passed would drastically affect the interest of the Mandali that the respondent No. 1 did not join the Mandali initially as party to the Special Civil Application No. 4928 of 1990 nor the conciliation proceedings nor in the M. C. A. No. 652 of 1991 nor in the Reference (IT) No. 329 of 1991 It is further submitted in the said affidavit that as the respondent No. 1-Union has misused and abused the process of law they are not entitled to get interim relief vacated; that the arrangement with the petitioner institution has consistently been for 15 women; that of these fifteenth woman has always been rotated while one Mangubehn Parmar in respect of whom demand has been made has already expired on 12-5-1991 and in her place one Chanchalbehn Ambaram is working in accordance with the practice and- procedure of the Mandali and excluding Savitbehn 13 women have refused to follow the instruction of the Mandali and have refused to go to other work places and that thereafter they have been continued only because of interim orders passed from time to time in different petitions filed by the respondent No. 1 They have also filed an Annexure showing the details of the women working in the 15th place at PRL. They are Ramilabehn Savabhai Kantabehn Kalidas Madhubehn Ramanlal Divabehn Karshanbhai Jashibehn Maheshbhai Gangabehn Pujabhai Chancalbehn Mohanbhai Narmadabehn Kantilal Kashibehn Jeshingbhai and Ambabehn Balabhai. It is submitted in the said affidavit that out of 15 women two women are being rotated as per the practice of the Mandali and therefore it would be totally unfair unjust and inequitable for the remaining 13 women to continue on one pretext or other. It is therefore submitted that 13 women are not entitled to continue at P. R. L. contrary to the principles of the Mandali. It is therefore submitted that 13 women are not entitled to continue at P. R. L. contrary to the principles of the Mandali. ( 17 ) IN the affidavit-in-rejoinder filed by very Manjulabehn Vaghela Secretary of the respondent No. 2-Mandali in reply to the affidavit-in-reply filed by Shri R. V. Shah of the respondent No. 1 all the contentions raised by her in the earlier affidavit-in-reply have been reiterated and more details with regard to the respondent No. 2 have been given in para-5. It is further submitted in the said affidavit that on account of the attitude of the respondent No. 1-Union in destroying the Co-operative Mandali the Mandali has been refused work and the contract has not been renewed at least by 7 to 8 institutions including the Gandhi Labour Institute resulting in employment of 96 member shareholders and a loss of yearly income amounting to Rs. 1 34 496 that in all about 225 women have already lost employment with a total loss of income to the tune of Rs. 4 60 96 per year; that the Society has been able to find economic opportunity for poorest of the poor women who were rag pickers in the city of Ahmedabad; that they were making successive and steady progress in the yearly income of the individual member shareholder and that the most serious consequence of the alleged dispute is on the co-operative Mandali and the earning of its members. It is therefore submitted that for improving the so-called prospects of 13 women in the alleged dispute this Court will not destroy the present and economic future of 225 members which could amount to their economic death and thus deprive them of the most fundamental and cherished right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In the said affidavit it is pointed out as to how the 13 ladies have participated in the Annual General Meeting of the Mandali. In the said affidavit it is pointed out as to how the 13 ladies have participated in the Annual General Meeting of the Mandali. It is reiterated that rotation of the member shareholder is one of the ways of ensuring a fair just and equitable opportunity to earn for each member of the Mandali; that the respondent No. 1-Union has never been able to secure any employment for any person from the unorganised sector; that out of the total working population in India only 11 % is in the organised sector whereas 89% of the working population in India comes from unorganised sector to which all the members of the present Mandali belong. ( 18 ) IT is also inter alia pointed out in the said affidavit that the Mandali has entered into various arrangements with PRL and any consideration of the demand by concerned women are not only illegal bad and not maintainable under the law but they would also cause untold damage in the light of facts and figures presented in the said affidavit. The allegations that said women are employees of PRL have been categorically denied and pointed out that the terms of the agreement are negotiated by the Mandali the material and other equipments are supplied by the Mandali to the concerned women the Mandali sent the Bill and receives money due to the Mandali the Mandali makes deductions towards the State Co-operative Education Fund and Co-operative Members Welfare Fund and after effecting such other deductions the member-shareholders are paid. ( 19 ) IT may be mentioned that on behalf of the respondent No. 3-Assistant Labour Commissioner and Conciliation Officer one Shri G. G. Shaikh working as Assistant Labour Commissioner has filed two affidavits. First affidavit was filed on the point of interim relief and the second affidavit was filed by him on 23-3-1992. ( 19 ) IT may be mentioned that on behalf of the respondent No. 3-Assistant Labour Commissioner and Conciliation Officer one Shri G. G. Shaikh working as Assistant Labour Commissioner has filed two affidavits. First affidavit was filed on the point of interim relief and the second affidavit was filed by him on 23-3-1992. In the first affidavit filed by Shri Shaikh it is inter alia submitted that the dispute which was referred by the respondent No. 4 is within the scope of the demand raised by the Union; that to make 14 ladies as the permanent employees of the PRL is the main demand of the Union and precisely the same is referred; that if there is any inaccuracy of language of the reference it does not make any difference of jurisdiction; that the reference would not be incompetent merely because of inaccuracy of language of reference; that appropriate Government cannot clutch the power to make reference only on the ground that there is no industrial dispute in existence; that even apprehended dispute can be referred by the appropriate Government and that dispute is in existence between the parties and therefore the matter was referred for adjudication. It is important to note that on the point of non-application of mind while making the reference it is submitted in the said affidavit that the 14 lady employees were working within the premises of the petitioner since 1982 (it appears to be a mistake and it should be 1984) to give desired result to the petitioner; that they are under the supervision and direct control of the petitioner and thereafter prima facie opinion is formed to the effect that the 14 ladies were given employment by the PRL. ( 20 ) IT is further submitted in the said affidavit that there are two types of workers working in the establishment: (i) direct labour and (ii) contract labour and according to the petitioner said 14 ladies were neither the contract labourers nor the direct labourers; that looking to the above-referred facts and circumstances prima facie opinion of the appropriate Government is that the respondent No. 2-Mandali is the device adopted by the petitioner to avoid the liabilities under the labour laws and therefore for adjudication of the status of the employees the matter was referred to the Industrial Tribunal. It is also submitted that contention that said ladies were members of the Society and therefore they were not employees of the Mandali and therefore there cannot be any relationship of master-servant between the PRL and said 14 ladies was not accepted saying that said contention is not logical only because of the 14 ladies are the members of the respondent No. 2-Mandali and therefore they are not their employees; that doubt is surfaced as to whether these ladies who are really working for the petitioner have any direct employer-employees relationship or not and for adjudication of the same the dispute was referred. It is also submitted that identical case of N. I. D. was relied on for the purpose of referring the matter for adjudication. . ( 21 ) IN the second affidavit filed by Mr. Shaikh it is rather surprising that the same gentleman resiled from what he has stated with regard to adopting of a device by the P. R. L. and submitted that the word used as device is not consistent with what has been stated above in the said affidavit. It is inter alia submitted in the said affidavit of Mr. Shaikh that one Mr. B. C. Patel who has filed affidavit on behalf of the Co-operative Department who is permitted to intervene in the matter has stated that it is the policy of the State Government in the Co-operation Department to unite the self-employed persons through Co-operative structure and provide them employment and the records produced suggested that the work which the members of the Society undertake is done by the members themselves which in turn fulfils the objective of formation of co-operatives of self - employed members. ( 22 ) IT is important to note that in the present case the disputed reference is made by the Dy. Labour Commissioner respondent-No. 4. However he has not filed any affidavit nor anybody else filed any affidavit on his behalf. As the order to make reference is an administrative one we directed the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 by an order dated 25 to keep the files of entire record of Ref. (1) (IT) No. 329 of 1991 ready. Accordingly they were kept ready and they were perused by us. From the said record it was found that there was some note prepared by the respondent No. 4-Dy. 3 and 4 by an order dated 25 to keep the files of entire record of Ref. (1) (IT) No. 329 of 1991 ready. Accordingly they were kept ready and they were perused by us. From the said record it was found that there was some note prepared by the respondent No. 4-Dy. Labour Commissioner wherein it is stated that demands of the Union are individual on considering demand as well as reports made by the parties and the opinion of Asstt. Labour Commissioner; that the ladies doing the cleaning work in PRL are not the direct employees of the institution; but they are members of the Mandali; that they are getting work and wages through the Mandali; that the institution is giving the amount as per the agreed rate for cleaning directly to the Mandali through cheque; that the Mandali is distributing the same but how and how much is not clarified by the institution as well as the Mandali nor any verification has been made by the Assistant Labour Commissioner in the matter hence how much wages really the ladies are getting is not clear; that similar work was done by the ladies in the N. I. D. for which reference was made and there is a decision of treating them as employees of the institution and giving them benefits treating them as permanent. That the ladies are not directly employed by the institution but the work has been accepted through the Mandali; that salaries are not directly paid by the institution to the ladies and therefore prima facie they cannot be treated as workmen of the institution; that these ladies cannot get the benefits which the permanent workmen of the institution are getting and hence they are clearly exploited and that with a view to give justice to the ladies the reference should be made. ( 23 ) IT may also be stated that during the course of the hearing of this petition one application being Civil Application No. 566 of 1992 was filed in the aforesaid Special Civil Application by the State of Gujarat through its Secretary Co-operation Department along with the affidavit of one Shri B. C. Patel Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies Gujarat State Gandhinagar on 9-3-1992. In the said Civil Application they prayed for permitting the State Government to be joined as party-respondent to the aforesaid petition or to be joined as an intervener Accordingly the State Government was permitted to intervene and on behalf of the State Government Mr. P. M. Raval Addl. Advocate General argued the matter. ( 24 ) IT may stated at the outset that Shri G. N. Desai learned Counsel for the petitioner Shri M. C. Bhatt learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 Union Miss Rani Advani learned Advocate for the respondent No. 2-Mandali and Shri P. M. Raval learned Addl. Advocate General for the State of Gujarat have advanced arguments at length. They all have cited before us various judgments on the point of the powers of the appropriate Government while considering as to whether the reference should be made under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 or not. We have carefully considered all the judgments cited before us. Before we dwell on that point it would be necessary to first consider the point as to whether the petitioner is entitled to any relief on account of the alleged suppression of facts as contended by the respondent No. 1-Union. This point was argued vehemently by Mr. M. C. Bhatt learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 Mr. Bhatt submitted that the petitioner-PRL is guilty of suppression material facts. According to him the reference reached the Industrial Tribunal Ahmedabad on 2-7-1991 and the respondent No. 1-Union filed its statement of claim and interim relief application on 4-7-1991. He further submitted that as there was caveat filed by the petitioner-PRL notice was made returnable on 5-7-1991; on 5-7-1991 the petitioner-PRL appeared and requested for time. Accordingly time was granted upto 8-7-1991 and on 8 two learned Advocates appeared and the matter came to be adjourned to 18-7-1991 and status quo was ordered to be maintained upto 22 According to Mr. Bhatt the aforesaid Special Civil Application was moved for urgent circulation for 17-7-1991 and interim relief was granted in terms of para-9 (C) of the petition on the same day. Bhatt the aforesaid Special Civil Application was moved for urgent circulation for 17-7-1991 and interim relief was granted in terms of para-9 (C) of the petition on the same day. ( 25 ) IT appears that the petitioner moved an amendment application being Civil Application No. 1387 of 1991 on 22-7-1991 and it was granted on 30 However by mistake or otherwise the amendment sought by the petitioner vide said civil application was not carried out but subsequently the petitioner was permitted to carry out the said amendment on 27-3-1992 and accordingly the said amendment is carried out. By virtue of the said amendment which is carried out as per the order of 30 the petitioner has already incorporated in the petition that the petitioner has filed a caveat in the Industrial Tribunal to the effect that the petitioner may be heard if the respondent No. 1-Union approached the Tribunal for any interim relief and requests for any order in the reference proceedings. The petitioner was served with an application for interim relief by the respondent No. 1 and the petitioner therefore appeared before the Industrial Tribunal Court No. 3 Ahmedabad and filed its reply dated 8-7-1991 opposing the grant of interim relief. The copy of reply filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal was also annexed as Annexure-N to the petition. The petitioner opposed the grant of interim relief on 8-7-1991 and the Industrial Tribunal fixed the matter on 18-7-1991 for hearing of interim relief application and granted status quo till 22-7-1992. ( 26 ) IT is true that initially there was omission of the facts in the petition but subsequently the petitioner sought for an amendment and the said amendment was granted and when the said amendment was carried out it related back to the date of filing of the petition. When that is so it cannot be said that the aforesaid facts mentioned by Mr. M. C. Bhatt learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1-Union can be said to have been suppressed by the petitioner-PRL. When that is so it cannot be said that the aforesaid facts mentioned by Mr. M. C. Bhatt learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1-Union can be said to have been suppressed by the petitioner-PRL. Assuming that those facts were not mentioned in the petition even so it appears from the order dated 11-9-1991 passed by the Division Bench consisting of justice S. B. Majmudar and Justice M. S. Parikh on the Civil Application No. 1355 of 1991 for vacating interim relief that the interim relief granted was not vacated on the ground of alleged suppression of facts by the petitioner-PRL. On this ground also the said contention raised by Mr. M. C. Bhatt does not hold good. ( 27 ) IN fact the main grievance in the aforesaid petition is with regard to making of the reference by the respondent No. 4-Dy. Labour Commissioner. The validity of the order making the reference is under challenge in this petition and therefore entire attention is focused on the point as to whether the said reference was validly made by the Government or not. When that is so whatever is done on the point of granting of interim relief by the Industrial Tribunal before the present petition came to be filed cannot be said to be material and non-mentioning of the fact in the petition cannot be said to be suppression of facts. It may also be stated that in the petition itself apart from specifically mentioning as to what has happened before the Industrial Tribunal there is a reference about maintaining of status quo for a period of two months from the date of the said order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Special Application No. 4928 of 1990 on 27-2-1991 and on the basis of the said order the said petition was treated as withdrawn. The aforesaid Special Civil Application No. 4928 of 1990 was filed by the respondent No. 1-Union. Similar petition being Special Civil Application No. 3107 of 1991 was filed by the respondent No. 1 and in the order passed therein on 17 status quo granted by this Court on 27 was further extended for a period of three weeks from the date of the said order. Accordingly the said petition was also withdrawn by the respondent No. 1-Union. Accordingly the said petition was also withdrawn by the respondent No. 1-Union. Under these circumstances the non-mentioning of what has happened before the Industrial Tribunal Ahmedabad is totally immaterial. In that view of the matter we do not find any substance in the contention raised by Mr. M. C. Bhatt on the point of suppression of material fact by the petitioner and therefore said contention is rejected. ( 28 ) MR. M. C. Bhatt learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1-Union further contended before us about the maintainability of the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the reference is made by the appropriate Government under Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Simple answer to the said contention is that whenever any order passed by the Government is challenged it is always subject to the judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In this connection it may be stated that three Honourable Judges of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Management of Express Newspapers Private Limited v. The Workers and Others reported in AIR 1963 SC 569 have observed in para-10 of the said judgment as under:the true legal position in regard to the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the appellants petition even at the initial stage of the proceedings proposed to be taken before the Industrial Tribunal is not in dispute. . . . There is no doubt that in law the appellant is entitled to move the High Court even at the initial stage and seek to satisfy it that the dispute is not an industrial dispute and so the Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to embark upon the proposed enquiry. ( 29 ) LIKEWISE in M/s. Hochtief Gammon v. State of Orissa 1975-II LLJ 418 the Supreme Court of India with regard to the power of the Courts in relation to the orders of the appropriate Government in the matter of referring industrial dispute for adjudication held that a writ of mandamus would lie against the Government. Reference was made in this regard to a decision of House of Lords in Padfield v. Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food (1968) A. C. 997. Accordingly the Executives have to reach their decision by taking into account relevant considerations. They should take into consideration wholly irrelevant or extraneous matters. Reference was made in this regard to a decision of House of Lords in Padfield v. Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food (1968) A. C. 997. Accordingly the Executives have to reach their decision by taking into account relevant considerations. They should take into consideration wholly irrelevant or extraneous matters. They should not misdirect themselves on a point of law. The Court can direct them to reconsider the matter in the light of relevant matters though the propriety adequacy or satisfactory character of the reasons if stated may not be open to judicial review. In that case the main question was: If bonus is payable who is the employer and who is responsible for payment of bonus to the workmen as between the contractor who engaged the workmen and the Company (M/s. Hindustan Steel Limited ). That dispute was held to be a substantial dispute as between the appellant and the Company and could not be regarded as incidental. The appeal was allowed and the State Government was directed to reconsider and take a decision in the matter of making of reference in the light of relevant facts. ( 30 ) IN view of the aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court filing or maintainability of the present petition cannot be challenged. The question as to whether to grant the reliefs prayed for in the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or not depends upon the facts and the questions involved in each case. Under the circumstances we hold that the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable. ( 31 ) 30 It is further contended by Mr. M. C. Bhatt on behalf of the respondent No. 1-Union that the present petition should not be allowed inasmuch as the appropriate Government has authority to prima face decide as to whether the industrial dispute exists or not and it has no power to finally adjudicate the same. When the order of reference is already made by the appropriate Government and/or its delegates if at all there is any dispute with regard to the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal that can be raised before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has to decide the reference on all the points including the point as to whether the industrial dispute exists or is apprehended or not. According to Mr. According to Mr. Bhatt the Industrial Tribunal has to decide all the disputed questions of facts also while exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India this Court would not like to enter into disputed questions of facts. ( 32 ) WE have elaborately stated the facts in detail as also the contentions raised by the respective parties in the beginning of this judgment. The main contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is the making of the reference is without application of mind and contrary to the record and is therefore perverse on the face of it and therefore the reference is patently bad illegal and without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of law. ( 33 ) FOR the purpose of appreciating these contentions it would be necessary to refer to Sections 10 (1) and 12 (5) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 The relevant extract of the said Sections reads as follows:10 Reference of disputes to Boards Courts or Tribunals. (1) Where the appropriate Government is of opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended it may at any time by order in writing- (a ). . . . . . . . (b ). . . . . . . . (c ). . . . . . . . (d) refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with or relevant to the dispute whether it relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule or the Third Schedule to a Tribunal for adjudication. . . . . . . . . 12 Duties of conciliation officers: (1 ). . . . . . . . (2 ). . . . . . . . (3 ). . . . . . . (4 ). . . . . . . . (5) If on a consideration of the report referred to in sub-section (4) the appropriate Government is satisfied that there is a case for reference to a Board Labour Court Tribunal or National Tribunal it may make such reference. Where the appropriate Government does not make such a reference it shall record and communicate to the parties concerned its reasons therefor. Where the appropriate Government does not make such a reference it shall record and communicate to the parties concerned its reasons therefor. ( 34 ) IT is therefore clear that the appropriate Government must come to an opinion which means the appropriate Government must apply its mind on the point as to whether a dispute which comes within the definition of Section 2 (k) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has come into existence or not and if it comes to such a decision reference of the dispute to any of the authorities mentioned in the aforesaid Section can be made. It is well settled that in making a reference under Section 10 of the Act the appropriate Government is doing an administrative act and the fact that it has to form an opinion as to factual existence of the dispute as a preliminary to the discharge of its functions does not make it the less administrative in character. The Court therefore cannot canvass order of reference closely to see whether there was any material before the Government to support its conclusion as if it was a judicial or quasi-judicial determination. However the order making the reference can be challenged on the ground of non-application of mind or mis-direction of mind and the opinion of the Government must be bona fide and must disclose application of mind. If the opinion is not in favour of making a reference reasons must be germane to the issue and must not show any irrelevant or extraneous consideration. On the other hand if the appropriate Government is not satisfied that prima facie case has been made out for a reference of the dispute to adjudication it may decline to make a reference and when the Government refuses to make a reference it is under an obligation to record reasons for refusal and to communicate the same to the parties concerned. ( 35 ) IT may be stated that in this case the respondent No. 1-Union has placed reliance mainly on the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Telco Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh and Another v. State of Bihar and Others AIR 1989 SC 1565 wherein it is held that in performing this administrative function the Government cannot delve into the merits of the dispute and take upon itself the determination of the lis which would certainly be in excess of the power conferred on it by Section 10. However it is further observed in the said case that in considering the question of making a reference under Section 10 (1) the Government is entitled to form an opinion as to whether an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended. But the formation of opinion as to whether an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended is not the same thing as to adjudicate the dispute itself on merits. In the said case the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of Ram Avtar Sharma v. State of Haryana AIR 1985 SC 915 and M. P. Irrigation Karmachari Sangh v. State of M. P. AIR 1985 SC 860 and Shambhu Nath Goyal v. Bank of Baroda Jullunder AIR 1978 SC 1088 were referred to and relied on. However in the facts of the said case ( AIR 1989 SC 1565 ) the Supreme Court was of the view that the State Government was not justified in adjudicating the dispute namely whether the convoy drivers are employees or workmen of TELCO or not and therefore the order of the Dy. Labour Commissioner acting on behalf of the Government and that of the Government itself was not sustainable. ( 36 ) ON the contrary reliance is also placed by the petitioner on some of the observations made by the Supreme Court of India reported in AIR 1963 SC 569 referred to hereinabove as also the Full Bench decision of the Delhi High Court reported in 1982 Labour and Industrial Cases 1309 wherein the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1978 SC 1088 is also referred to. In the said case the real dispute between the parties was whether there was a lock-out or closure in the establishment and the Government referred the dispute by assuming that there was a lock-out. In the said case the real dispute between the parties was whether there was a lock-out or closure in the establishment and the Government referred the dispute by assuming that there was a lock-out. The order of reference was also liable to be interfered with as the Labour Court could not travel beyond the reference and decide the question as to whether there was a lock-out or not. In the said case (1982 Lab. I. C. 1309 it is inter alia observed in para-31 of the judgment as under:. . . MAKING of an order of reference is undoubtedly an administrative function but even that is amenable to judicial review in the proceedings under Article 226 under certain facts and circumstances. An order of reference is open to judicial review if it is shown that the appropriate Government has not applied its mind to the material before it or has not taken into consideration certain vital facts which it ought to have taken into consideration. . . . ( 37 ) ON the facts of that case it is further observed as follows:. . . BUT the Tribunal could not enlarge the scope of jurisdiction on concession and decide that there was a closure and no lock-out. That would be deciding the foundation of the dispute mentioned in the order of reference. Such a jurisdiction is not vested in the Industrial Tribunal. We are therefore of the opinion that the order of reference has to be quashed as the real dispute has not been referred. It will be open to the Delhi Administration to make another order of reference in the light of the material before it construed in accordance with the observations made by this Court. We are therefore of the opinion that the order of reference has to be quashed as the real dispute has not been referred. It will be open to the Delhi Administration to make another order of reference in the light of the material before it construed in accordance with the observations made by this Court. ( 38 ) AFTER the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of TELCO (supra) the Division Bench of this Court consisting of Justice M. B. Shah and Justice V. H. Bhairavia in the case of N. D. D. B. Employees Union v. State of Gujarat and Another 1991 G. L. H. 176 has also considered the said decision of the Supreme Court in the case of TELCO (supra) and after referring to the same in para-5 in para-6 of the judgment it is observed as under:6 For this purpose the Court has relied upon its previous decision in the case of Ram Avtar Sharma v. State of Haryana A. I. R. 1985 S. C. 915 and M. P. Irrigation Karmachari Sangh v. State of M. P. A. I. R. 1985 S. C. 860. In the case of Ram Avtar Sharma v. State of Haryana A. I. R. 1985 S. C. 915 the Supreme Court has specifically observed that for arriving at a satisfaction whether an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended the appropriate Government may determine prima facie whether any industrial dispute exists or the claim is frivolous or bogus or put forth for extraneous and irrelevant reasons not for justice or industrial peace and harmony. If the administrative determination is based on grounds irrelevant extraneous or not to germane to the exercise of power it is liable to be questioned in exercise of judicial review and the court can direct the appropriate Government to reconsider the matter. . . . Thereafter para-5 of the judgment in the case of Ram Avtar Sharma (supra) has been quoted. ( 39 ) THE judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M. P. Irrigation Karmachari Sangh (supra) has also been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in para-7 of the aforesaid judgment in the case of N. D. D. B. Employees Union. ( 39 ) THE judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M. P. Irrigation Karmachari Sangh (supra) has also been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in para-7 of the aforesaid judgment in the case of N. D. D. B. Employees Union. The Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid judgment has also considered the observation made by the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1964 SC 1917 that the appropriate Government may consider prima facie the merits of the dispute and take into account the other relevant consideration which would help to decide whether making a reference would be expedient or not. ( 40 ) THE aforesaid judgment of this Court in the case of N. D. D. B. Employees Union has been considered by another Division Bench consisting of Justice S. B. Majmudar and Justice V. H. Bhairavia in the case of Gujarat Mazdoor Panchayat v. State of Gujarat and Others reported in 1991 (2) GLH 162 . The other judgments referred to hereinabove have also been considered by this Court in the case of Gujarat Mazdoor Panchayat (supra) in para 24 of the judgment. . ( 41 ) NOW we would like to deal with the contentions raised in the present petition in the light of the aforesaid established legal position. As stated earlier the respondent No. 4-Dy. . ( 41 ) NOW we would like to deal with the contentions raised in the present petition in the light of the aforesaid established legal position. As stated earlier the respondent No. 4-Dy. Labour Commissioner who has made the reference in the present case has made a note in the proceedings before him wherein it is inter alia stated that the ladies doing the cleaning work in PRL are not the direct employees of the Institution but they are members of the Mandali; they are getting work and wages through the Mandali; that the institution is giving the amount as per the agreed rate for cleaning directly to the Mandali through cheque; that the Mandali is distributing the same but how and how much is not clarified by the Institution as well as the Mandali nor any verification has been made by the Assistant Labour Commissioner in that matter and hence how much wages really the ladies are getting is not clear; that similar work was done by the ladies in the N. I. D. for which reference was made and there is a decision of treating them as employees of the institution and giving them benefits treating them as permanent; that the ladies are not directly employed by the Institution but the work has been accepted through the Mandali; that salaries are not directly paid by the Institution to the ladies and therefore prima facie they cannot be treated as workmen of the Institution; that these ladies cannot get the benefits which the permanent workmen of the Institution are getting and hence they are clearly exploited and that with a view to give justice to the ladies the reference should be made. ( 42 ) IT is therefore clear that in spite of the clear opinion of the officer exercising the powers of the Government for making a reference that said 14 ladies are prima facie not workmen of the Institution (PRL) and that they are the members of the Mandali still however as they are not getting the benefits which the permanent employees of the Institution are getting and as they are exploited with a view to give justice reference is made. ( 43 ) IT may be mentioned that in this case no affidavit whatsoever is filed by the Dy. Labour Commissioner the respondent No. 4 or anybody else on his behalf. ( 43 ) IT may be mentioned that in this case no affidavit whatsoever is filed by the Dy. Labour Commissioner the respondent No. 4 or anybody else on his behalf. The respondent No. 3-Assistant Labour Commissioner had filed affidavit summary of which has been already stated earlier in this judgment while stating the facts in paras 20 21 and 22. On perusal of the affidavits filed by the respondent No. 3-Assistant Labour Commissioner it appears that the averments made therein are somewhat inconsistent with the notes made by the respondent No. 4-Dy. Labour Commissioner. Mr. Shaikh Assistant Labour Commissioner the respondent No. 3 has filed second affidavit to the effect that he has resiled from his first affidavit on the point of device which has been adopted by the present petitioner in respect of said 14 lady workers and has stated that in view of the affidavit of Mr. B. C. Patel Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies the word device used is not consistent with what has been stated in the affidavit. Hence the affidavit of Mr. Shaikh Assistant Labour Commissioner are doubtful and do not throw any light on the application of mind by the Deputy Labour Commissioner. ( 44 ) IT may further be stated that Mr. Shaikh Assistant Labour Commissioner who has filed the affidavits has not even made the failure report in this case. The failure report in this case was made by one Mr. Gill who has not filed any affidavit. Once when the Deputy Labour Commissioner came to the prima facie conclusion that said 14 lady workers are not the workers of the Institution (PRL) then the appropriate Government or the officer authorised for making a reference must have applied mind to decide prima facie as to whether the industrial dispute exists or the claim is frivolous or bogus or put forth for extraneous and irrelevant reasons not for justice or industrial peace and harmony. On this point there is no application of mind. ( 45 ) IT may be stated at this Juncture that Mr. P. M. Raval learned Addl. On this point there is no application of mind. ( 45 ) IT may be stated at this Juncture that Mr. P. M. Raval learned Addl. Advocate General who has intervened in the matter on behalf of the State of Gujarat has also submitted that the respondent No. 4 Labour Commissioner has failed to consider the material placed before him on the point as to existence of industrial dispute and as to whether it is expedient to make a reference. He has also pointed out during the course of his argument that this point cannot be left to the Industrial Tribunal for its decision and that the best course in the facts and circumstances of the case would be to quash and set aside the reference and direct the appropriate Government and/or the respondent No. 4-Dy. Labour Commissioner to reconsider afresh the material placed before it/him. ( 46 ) AS held by the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Avtar Sharma ( AIR 1985 SC 915 ) the appropriate Government is required to apply its mind on the aforesaid aspects. Similarly in the case of Bombay Union of Journalists and Others v. State of Bombay AIR 1964 SC 1617 the Supreme Court has observed that the appropriate Government may consider prima facie the merits of the dispute and take into consideration other relevant considerations which would help it to decide whether a reference would be expedient or not. On this point also though elaborate written statement is filed before the Conciliation Officer on 4 along with various annexures the Dy. Labour Commissioner the respondent No. 4 has not applied his mind on the point as to whether it would be expedient to make a reference when the 14 lady workers are members of the respondent No. 2 and when the decision regarding them is likely to affect such co-operative societies which are organising the unorganised labourers and helping the poorest of poor ladies who were doing the work of rag pickers. We are in complete agreement with the submission of the learned Addl. Advocate General. For the reasons stated above we do not accept the contention of Mr. M. C. Bhatt that the present petition should not be allowed for the submissions made in para-30 hereinabove. ( 47 ) WHEN the Dy. We are in complete agreement with the submission of the learned Addl. Advocate General. For the reasons stated above we do not accept the contention of Mr. M. C. Bhatt that the present petition should not be allowed for the submissions made in para-30 hereinabove. ( 47 ) WHEN the Dy. Labour Commissioner the respondent No. 4 herein who has made the reference in the present case has not applied his mind on the aforesaid two aspects which is mandatory under the law and even as per the judgments of the Supreme Court referred to hereinabove the order (Annexure-M to the petition) dated 10-6-1991 passed by the respondent No. 4-Dy. Labour Commissioner making the reference to the Industrial Court Ahmedabad deserves to be quashed and set aside. ( 48 ) AS we are disposing of the petition only on the point of non-application of mind on the relevant aspects referred to above by the appropriate Government or its delegate it is not necessary to consider the other contentions raised in the present petition because direction will be required to be given for reconsidering the matter afresh by the respondent No. 4-Dy. Labour Commissioner on the basis of the material placed before him and in the light of the observations made in the judgment. It may be clarified that the other contentions raised in this petition are not dealt with deliberately as any conclusion and/or observation of the other contentions may embarass the appropriate Government or its delegate in forming the opinion and/or satisfication as required under Section 10 (1) read with Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act. ( 49 ) IN result the petition is allowed. The order passed by the respondent No. 4-Dy. Labour Commissioner on 10-6-1991 (Annexure-M to the petition) making the reference to the Industrial Court Ahmedabad is hereby quashed and set aside. It is directed that within six months the appropriate Government and/or its authorised officer should reconsider the matter and decide the same in the light of the material placed before it in accordance with the provisions of Section 10 (1) read with Section 12 (5) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 taking into consideration the observations made in this judgment along with the decisions of the Supreme Court of India referred to above. As the reference made by the respondent No. 4-Deputy Labour Commissioner dated 10-6-1991 (Annexure-M to the petition) is quashed and set aside consequently the Industrial Tribunal Court No. 3 Ahmedabad is directed to drop the Reference (IT) No. 329 of 1991 But in the interest of justice during the intervening period i. e. upto the time the appropriate Government tak es decision and for a further period of three weeks therefrom the interim relief of maintenance of status quo regarding employment of the persons concerned is directed to be continued in order to avoid any complication or multiplicity. Accordingly rule is made absolute with no order as to costs. .