S. R. NAYAK, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ appeal filed by the unsuccessful writ petitioner is directed against the order of the learned single judge dated 23. 2. 2001 made in Writ Petition No. 8665/2000. In the said writ petition, the petitioner assailed the proceedings No. YH/148/w. III issued by the Divisional Railway Manager (Works), Hyderabad Division, South Central Railways, Secunderabad, the 1st respondent herein and the proceedings No. 8/008/200022, dt. 28. 4. 2000 of the Assistant Labour Commissioner (CI), Office of the Regional Commissioner, ATI, Hyderabad, the 3rd respondent. ( 2 ) IT appears that the appellant-petitioner is a contractor by profession. Having undertaken certain works and executed the same from the Railways, according to the petitioner, a sum of Rs. 61,200. 00 due to the petitioner has been withheld by the railway administration in view of the order made by the 3rd respondent dated 28. 4. 2000 directing the railway administration to pay a sum of Rs. 61,200. 00 to the 4th respondent. It appears that the 4th respondent lodged a complaint with the 3rd respondent alleging that he worked under the petitioner contractor as a contract labourer and a total sum of Rs. 61,200. 00, which is due to him towards his wages, is not paid by the petitioner contractor. On the basis of that application and after issuing a notice under Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, the 3rd respondent by the impugned order dated 28. 4. 2000 directed the Railways to pay a total sum of Rs. 61,200. 00 to the 4th respondent. The petitioner contractor being aggrieved by the said order of the 3rd respondent filed the writ petition. ( 3 ) IN the writ affidavit, it was contended that the impugned order of the 3rd respondent is one without authority of law in addition to other grounds. The learned single judge thought it appropriate not to interfere with the direction issued by the 3rd respondent by observing thus:"in the present case, the Conciliation Officer has issued the notice dated 27. 4. 2000 requesting the petitioner to attend the conciliation proceedings and subsequently, the Principal Employer, i. e. the South Central railway has directed the petitioner-contractor to pay the amount due to the employee by enforcing the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. The conciliation has not been concluded and it is still in progress. 4. 2000 requesting the petitioner to attend the conciliation proceedings and subsequently, the Principal Employer, i. e. the South Central railway has directed the petitioner-contractor to pay the amount due to the employee by enforcing the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. The conciliation has not been concluded and it is still in progress. Instead of participating in the conciliation proceedings before the Conciliating Officer the petitioner has moved this Court by filing this writ petition which is not proper. " ( 4 ) HENCE, this writ appeal. ( 5 ) WHAT weighed with the learned single judge in dismissing the writ petition is reflected loudly in the above extracted portion of the order. In the first place, the learned judge seemed to have thought that the impugned order was passed by the 3rd respondent during the pendency of the conciliation proceedings. The question is when the conciliation proceedings are pending whether such an order could be passed is altogether a different matter. The 3rd respondent Conciliation Officer is a statutory authority. Therefore, any order that may be made by him should be in conformity with the provisions of the Act and ultra vires the Act. Therefore, what is required to be seen is whether the 3rd respondent has legal power under the Industrial Disputes Act or under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 to issue the impugned order. Even according to the 3rd respondent, the impugned order is the culmination of the proceedings initiated by him under Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act does not empower the Conciliation Authority to issue the kind of order impugned in the writ petition. The conciliation authority under Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, takes up conciliation between the parties to arrive at a settlement and if for any reason the settlement could not be reached between the parties, the conciliation authority under Section 12 of the Act has to submit failure report to the appropriate Government under sub-section (4) of Section 12 of the Act. Therefore, the impugned order is ultra vires of the power granted to the Conciliation Officer under Section 12 of the Act. Therefore, the impugned order is ultra vires of the power granted to the Conciliation Officer under Section 12 of the Act. Secondly, the impugned order cannot be sustained on the basis of the power granted to the 3rd respondent who is said to be an Inspector appointed by the Government under Section 28 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 for enforcement of the provisions of the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 28 of that Act enumerates the power of the Inspectors. It reads as follows:"2) Subject to any rules made in this behalf, an Inspector may, within his local limits, for which he is appointed : a) enter, at all reasonable hours, with such assistant (if any), being persons in the service of the Government or any local or other public authority as he thinks fit, any premises or place which contact labour is employed; for the purpose of examining any register or record or notices required to be kept or exhibited by or under this Act or rules made thereunder, and require the production thereof, for inspection b) examine any person whom he finds in any such premises or places and who, he has reasonable cause to believe, s a workman employed therein; c) require any person, giving out work and any workman, to give any information, which is in his power to give with respect to the names and addresses of the persons to, for and from whom the work is given out or received, and with respect of the payments to be made for the work. d) Seize or take copies of such register, record of wages or notices or portions thereof, as he may consider relevant in respect of an offence under this Act, which he has reason to believe has been committed by the principal employer or contractor; and e) Exercise such other powers as may be prescribed. " ( 6 ) NONE of the clauses (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of sub-section (2) confers any power on the Inspector to issue direction to the railway administration to pay a sum of Rs. 61,200. 00 to the petitioner towards the outstanding wages particularly when that claim is hotly disputed by the railway administration. " ( 6 ) NONE of the clauses (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of sub-section (2) confers any power on the Inspector to issue direction to the railway administration to pay a sum of Rs. 61,200. 00 to the petitioner towards the outstanding wages particularly when that claim is hotly disputed by the railway administration. Therefore, the only remedy available to the 4th respondent is to work out his legal remedies either in the Civil Court or seeking adjudication of the disputed claim before the appropriate forum under the Industrial Disputes Act or A. P. Shops and Establishments Act if the said Act is applicable to the petitioner. Without determination of the disputed claim by a competent Court or judicial forum, the 3rd respondent either in his capacity as Conciliation Officer under Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act or as an Inspector under sub-section (1) of Section 28 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 cannot straightaway issue a direction to the railway administration to pay the disputed claim of the 4th respondent in a sum of Rs. 61,200. 00. ( 7 ) IN conclusion, we hold that the impugned direction issued by the 3rd respondent is one without authority of law. Therefore, with respect, we are of the considered opinion that the learned judge is not justified in dismissing the writ petition on the ground that the conciliation proceedings are still pending without deciding the jurisdictional point raised by the appellant-petitioner. It needs to be noticed that even during the pendency of the conciliation proceedings, the 3rd respondent is not vested with any power under the Industrial Disputes Act to issue such direction to the railway administration. ( 8 ) IN the result, the writ appeal is allowed and the order of the learned single judge is set aside. The writ petition is allowed and the order impugned in the writ petition is quashed with no order as to costs. However, this order shall not come in the way of the 4th respondent to work out his legal remedies to recover the outstanding wage-dues from the employer by initiating appropriate legal actions.