V. GOPALA GOWDA, J. ( 1 ) THESE petitions are posted for orders on the memo filed by the petitioner-union seeking to dispose of the writ petitions reserving liberty to the petitioners to raise an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act condoning the delay in approaching him by placing reliance upon the judgment of the, supreme Court in Steel Authority of India limited and Others v. National Union waterfront Workers and Others, AIR 2001 SC 3527 : 2000 (7) SCC 1 : 2001-II-LLJ-1087. ( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the first respondent opposed the prayer made in the memo placing reliance upon sub-para (5) of paragraph 125 of Steel Authority of India limiteds case referred to (supra), where in it is held that on issuance of the prohibition, notification under Section 10 (1) of the Contract labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 prohibiting employment of contract labour or otherwise, in an industrial dispute brought before it by any contract labour in regard to conditions of service the industrial adjudicator will have to consider the question whether the contractor has been interposed either on the ground of having undertaken to produce any given result for the establishment or for supply of contract labour for work of the establishment under a genuine contract or is a mere ruse/camouflage to evade compliance with various beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workers of the benefit thereunder. It is submitted that in the instant case, there is no abolition of contract labour by respondents and 2; that since the mines owned by the first respondent had beep closed, the employment was refused and as such the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case has no application to the facts of the present case. It is submitted that in the instant case, there is no abolition of contract labour by respondents and 2; that since the mines owned by the first respondent had beep closed, the employment was refused and as such the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case has no application to the facts of the present case. It is further contended by the learned counsel for respondent 1 that an industrial dispute was raised on behalf of the concerned workmen by the petitioner/union; that the State Government in exercise of its power under Section 10 (l) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the same to the Labour Court, Mangalore; for adjudication of the industrial dispute between the parties as per the points of dispute referred to it, that in the said reference the respondent/management had taken up a contention that the Karnataka State government is not the appropriate Government in terms of Section 2 (a) of the Act 1947 to make the reference to the Labour Court, Mangalore; that the Labour Court accepting the said contention has rejected the same; that the said , award has not been challenged either by petitioners or their trade union and as such the relief prayed for by the petitioners in the memo cannot be granted by this Court. ( 3 ) AFTER considering the rival contentions ; urged by the learned counsel on behalf of the parties, I am of the view that the disputed questions. of fact namely, whether there is abolition of contract labour or refusal of employment to the concerned workmen or otherwise as stated by the Apex Court at sub-para (5) of paragraph 119 of the Steel Authority of india Limiteds case, (supra), 2001-II-LLJ-1087 at 1132 requires to be resolved either by the central Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court ; on the reference being made by the Government of India in exercise of the power under Section 10 (l) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act by the appropriate Government. ( 4 ) HAVING regard to the undisputed fact that the earlier reference was rejected by the labour Court, Mangalore on the technical ground urged by the first respondent that the state Government is not the appropriate government for making the reference to the ; Labour Court for adjudication of the existing industrial dispute; that thereafter these writ petitions have been filed seeking for issuance of a writ of mandamus to the respondents and that during the pendency of these writ petitions, the judgment of the Apex Court in the Steel authority of India Limiteds case, (supra), has been pronounced holding that an industrial dispute between the concerned workmen and the first respondent/management has to be adjudicated either by the competent Central industrial Tribunal or the Central Labour Court on a reference being made by the Government and also having regard to the fact that the matter is pending before this Court from 1999 and the dispute was raised way back in the year 1985 and there is an existing industrial dipute raised by the petitioners/workmen pending for determination either before the Central industrial Tribunal, Labour Court or before this Court, this Court cannot record a finding of fact on the disputed questions of fact. In this view of the matter and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case, the prayer sought for in the memo for issuance of a writ of mandamus to the Government of india, the second respondent herein to make a reference, is just and proper. ( 5 ) INSOFAR as the delay is concerned, the government of India is required to apply the ratio 1 laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of sapan Kumar Pandit v. Uttar Pradesh State electricity Board and Others, 2001 (6) SCC 222 : 2001-II-LLJ-788. The delay in getting the reference made shall not be the relevant; consideration for the Central Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court for moulding the relief and that itself shall not be the ground to the 2nd respondent to refuse or to make reference either to the Tribunal or the Labour Court. The delay in getting the reference made shall not be the relevant; consideration for the Central Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court for moulding the relief and that itself shall not be the ground to the 2nd respondent to refuse or to make reference either to the Tribunal or the Labour Court. ( 6 ) FOR the reasons stated supra, these writ petitions are allowed with a direction to the union of India, the 2nd respondent to accept the petition presented before this Court as the peitions submitted by the pistisner-Union raising an industrial dispute is in terms of section 2 (k) read with Section 12 (1) of the I. D. Act and also under the provisions of the contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) act, 1970. Further, keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the Steel authority of India Limiteds case, (supra), and notwithstanding the fact that the conciliation proceedings are conducted, the second respondent shall in exercise of its power, make reference to the appropriate Central Industrial tribunal or the Labour Court for adjudication of the existing industrial dispute between the workmen of the petitioner/union and the respondent 1-Management within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondents 2 and 3 while exercising their power under Section 10 (l) (d) of the I. D. Act shall not consider the pendency of these petitions before this Court from the year 1999 keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex court in the Steel Authority of India Limiteds case referred to and pass appropriate order : making reference either to Central Industrial tribunal or Labour Court for adjudication of the existing industrial dispute between the workmen and first respondent. --- *** --- .