Judgment Aftab Alam, J. 1. The petitioner in this application under Articles 226 and 277 of the Constitution seeks to challenge certain directions given it to by the Dy. Labour Commissioner, Patna vide his letter No. 3790 dated October 30, 1991; a photo copy of this letter has been enclosed as Annexure-I. 2. The petitioner is a Company engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of footwear and one of its factories/manufacturing units is situated at Bataganj, Digha in the city of Patna (hereinafter lo be referred as the Digha Factory)- For the benefit of its workers, the petitioner is obliged, under the provisions of the Factories Act, to maintain a canteen at the Digha factory. It has naturally employed workers to work in the canteen. The petitioner pays wages to its workers (other than those working in the canteen) in terms of periodically revised wage agreements arrived at between the management - and the Union of Workers, respondent No. 3. To the canteen workers, however, it pays (much lower) wages al the rates fixed by the notification relating to leather industries, issued under the Minimum Wages Act. There is admittedly a dispute in existence between the management and the workers regarding the rates at which the canteen workers are entitled to receive their wages. It appears that on this dispute a conciliation proceeding under the Industrial Disputes Act was going on before the Dy. Labour Commissioner in course of which (and not under any provisions of the Minimum Wages Act) the impugned letter has been issued. The letter under challenge purports to direct the management to pay wages to the workers of the canteen at the rates fixed by the notification relating to hotel and restaurant workers issued under the Minimum Wages Act. It is this purported direction which causes grievance to the petitioner and which is sought to be challenged in this application. 3. Mr. Jai Krishna, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Bata Mazdoor Union, respondent No. 3 has been unable to point out any provision either in the Minimum Wages Act or in the Industrial Disputes Act or in any other law, by virtue of which the Dy. Labour Commissioner could legally issue such directions to the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Labour Commissioner could legally issue such directions to the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Tara Kishore Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner also has been forced to admit that the so called directions contained in the impugned letter are neither binding upon the petitioner nor enforceable against it. The contents of the letter are simply the opinion of the Dy, Labour Commissioner, nothing more and nothing less. This being the position the petitioner could have easily ignored the so-called directions rather than challenging them in a writ application. 5. I am of the view that the so called directions and the petitioners challenge to them are only deviations from the main dispute and any decision on the validity (or otherwise) of the impugned direction will not serve any meaningful purpose because it will not even touch the main dispute or will in any manner affect the rights of the parties to the dispute, that is to say, even if this application is allowed and the impugned directions are quashed, it will not prevent the workmen from taking recourse to any relevant provision under the different statutes e.g. Sec. 20 of the Minimum Wages Act or Sec. 33-C of the Industrial Disputes Act or a reference under Sec. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, on the other hand even if this application was to be dismissed and the so called directions were not be interfered with, the directions not being enforceable against the petitioner, it will remain completely unaffected. Thus regardless of what may be the result of this application the position and the rights of the parties shall remain unaltered. 6. I am, therefore, of the opinion that no further order is required to be passed in so far as the impugned letter is concerned. It has already been noted that the so called directions are no more than the opinion of the Dy. Labour Commissioner and hence it is upto the petitioner to follow them or not to follow them. No coercive measures of any kind can be taken against the petitioner for not following the directions contained in the impugned letter. It has already been noted that the so called directions are no more than the opinion of the Dy. Labour Commissioner and hence it is upto the petitioner to follow them or not to follow them. No coercive measures of any kind can be taken against the petitioner for not following the directions contained in the impugned letter. However, if the concerned authorities under the Minimum Wages Act are of the opinion that by not making payment to the canteen workers at the rates fixed by the notification relating to hotel and restaurant workers, the petitioner is violating the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, then the consequences under that Act will follow and the petitioner shall face them in accordance with law. 7. The matter, however, does not end here as at this stage Mr. Jai Krishna, strongly urged that this court should undertake an adjudication on the main dispute between the parties. As noted, the real dispute between the parties relates to the rates at which the canteen workers are to be paid their wages. According to the case of the Union, the canteen workers being no less the workers of the Digha factory should be paid wages, like other workmen, in terms of the wage agreements, alternatively it is claimed that they should be paid wages as fixed by the notification relating to hotel and restaurant workers issued under the Minimum Wages Act. According to the petitioner, it is rightly paying wages to the canteen workers at the rates fixed by the notification relating to leather industries. 8. A dispute of this nature can hardly be adjudicated upon effectively in exercise of writ jurisdiction. More so, as this court does not have the advantage of any adjudication by an original authority and is invited to undertake the adjudication (doubtlessly involving complex facts) at the first instance. Accordingly, I firmly decline to enter into the merits of the dispute. But I cannot leave this matter in limbo any further either. 9. It is undeniable that an industrial dispute has been in existence between the management of the petitioner company and its workmen, represented by the third respondent. The subject of the dispute is the wages payable to the canteen workers employed at the canteen in the Digha factory. But I cannot leave this matter in limbo any further either. 9. It is undeniable that an industrial dispute has been in existence between the management of the petitioner company and its workmen, represented by the third respondent. The subject of the dispute is the wages payable to the canteen workers employed at the canteen in the Digha factory. It is also not denied that this dispute is the subject matter of a conciliation proceeding now going on for the past about two and a half years. It appears that the conciliation is not proceeding properly and in accordance with law; that is, it seems neither to conclude in a settlement between the parties nor does it seem to end in failure leading to a reference for adjudication. The conciliation appears to be proceeding in a wholly unsatisfactory manner, it has lingered on inordinately and all kinds of unauthorised, unenforceable and irrelevant orders are being passed in its course. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of the case it is desirable that the dispute should be referred for adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal. At this stage, I may record that though the learned counsel for respondent No. 3 is agreeable to a reference in terms of Sec. 10-A, Mr. Prasad for the petitioner is not so agreeable and submits that a reference under Sec. 10(I)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act will be more appropriate. I accordingly direct the first respondent, namely, Secretary, Department of Labour & Employment, New Secretariat, Patna to refer the following dispute to the Industrial Tribunal, Patna in terms of Sec. 10(l)(d) of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947:- "Whether the action of the Management of Bata India Limited, Bataganj, Digha, Patna in paying wages to its canteen workers at the rates fixed by the notification relating to leather industries under the Minimum Wages Act is legal, justified and proper? If not at what rates and/or on what basis the canteen workers should be paid their wages? The notification under Sec. 10(l)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act must be issued within three weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The parties are in agreement that they shall file their written statements within three weeks from the date of the issuance of the notification. The notification under Sec. 10(l)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act must be issued within three weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The parties are in agreement that they shall file their written statements within three weeks from the date of the issuance of the notification. It is hoped and trusted that the Tribunal shall make its award within six months from the date of the filing of the written statement by the parties. 11 With these observations and directions, this application is disposed of.