JUDGMENT:- By this writ petition, the employer has challenged the order dated 12/ 13-12-2006 delivered by Member, Industrial Court, Nagpur in ULP Complaint No.1045/1991. The said complaint under Item 9 Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act was filed by the present respondent No.1-Trade Union for the benefit of its employees. The Union contended that the establishment of present petitioners was an Engineering Industry and, therefore, they are entitled to receive minimum wages as fixed for Engineering Industry under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act. The consequential relief was to direct the employer to issue attendance-cum-wage card to the employees. The Industrial Court has, by its order mentioned above, allowed the said complaint. It declared that the petitioners have indulged in unfair labour practice under Item 9, Schedule IV and it directed the employer to pay the employees, named in its order, minimum wages as per the Minimum Wages Act and also to issue attendance-cum-wage card to those employees. This Court has admitted the writ petition on 16-01-1996. On 13-02-1996, while considering the prayer for grant of interim relief, this Court, directed the workers to furnish an undertaking before the Industrial Court that in case the writ petition is allowed and the order of Industrial Court is quashed; if they are required to refund the amount of salary, they would refund it. 2. The brief facts, in which the present complaint came to be filed, need to be stated now. It appears that before filing this complaint, the employees filed application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act jointly in their personal names vide IDA Case No.338/1999. In the application, they prayed for difference of wages as mentioned by them in the Schedule along with interest at 18%. This application was opposed by the present petitioners by filing their written statement. The petitioners, in their written statement, contended that they are having only a stock yard at Nagpur and there is no manufacturing activity or any commercial undertaking. They further contended that only loading and unloading work is done in their stock yard and the same is got done through a Contractor. They contended that the employees, who approached the Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, were not their employees and as such prayed for dismissal of those proceedings. They further contended that only loading and unloading work is done in their stock yard and the same is got done through a Contractor. They contended that the employees, who approached the Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, were not their employees and as such prayed for dismissal of those proceedings. It appears that during pendency of this 33-C (2) proceedings, the present respondent No.1 Trade Union has filed the present complaint under Section 28 r/w 30 of Item 9, Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act. The said complaint came to be" registered as ULP Complaint No.1045/1991. The stand of respondent No.1 in its complaint is that employees are doing work of manufacturing steel bushes, which are required for construction of bridges. It is, therefore, urged that said work is covered by Engineering Works Industry and therefore minimum wages fixed for Engineering Industry under the Minimum Wages Act must be paid to these workers. The other relief asked for was to issue attendance-cum-wage card. The employer appeared before the Industrial Court in this complaint and filed their reply. In the reply again, the stand taken earlier before the Labour Court was taken and it was pointed out that the activities at Nagpur were only of stock yard and there is no Engineering Industry. It was further stated that the members of the Trade Union, who filed the complaint, were engaged through a Contractor only for loading and unloading and the existence of relationship of master and servant was specifically denied. It was further stated that loading and unloading work was also required to be carried out only through Mathadi labours under the provisions of the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969. The learned Member, Industrial Court, thereafter, appointed Investigating Officer to investigate in the matter upon application moved by the present respondent No.1. The Investigating Officer investigated the establishment of petitioners on 23-04-1992 and submitted his report. In his report he mentioned that only the work of loading and unloading, stacking, work of correspondence and implementation of orders received from the Head Office is carried out at Nagpur. In other words, he reported that there is no manufacturing activity at all. The Investigating Officer investigated the establishment of petitioners on 23-04-1992 and submitted his report. In his report he mentioned that only the work of loading and unloading, stacking, work of correspondence and implementation of orders received from the Head Office is carried out at Nagpur. In other words, he reported that there is no manufacturing activity at all. He further stated that the work of loading and unloading or of stacking or of maintaining the records is got done through Contractor's labourers. The seven workers, for whose benefit the complaint was filed, were reported to be the employees of one Ashadeep Udyogh Agency, the Contract9r engaged by the petitioners. The Investigating Officer also recorded statement of one Shri. Mokashi, Senior Clerk in the employment of the petitioners, one Shri. Dilip Sagdeo, Labour Contractor and also one employee Shri. Jambhulkar from complainant Union. In this background, the Member Industrial Court, recorded evidence of parties. Respondent No.1 Union examined one Rajendra Gangotri, its Vice President and one employee Shri. Jambhulkar in support of its case. The petitioners examined Shri. Vilas Bakhle, who is Workers Manager and Shri. Dilip Sagdeo-the Contractor, in support of their defense. The learned Member, Industrial Court, thereafter, heard the arguments and delivered the order as mentioned above. 3. I have heard Mr. S. S. Ghate, Advocate for petitioners-employer, Advocate Charpe, Advocate for respondent NO.1-Trade Union and Mrs. Wasnik, learned A.G.P. for respondent No.2. 4. Advocate Ghate has, at the outset, invited attention of the Court to the fact that the Industrial Court or Labour Court, functioning under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, has got limited jurisdiction and, therefore, if there is a dispute in relation to the question about relationship of employer and employee, the same cannot be gone into by it. He contends that the said question arose in the facts of the present case and the Industrial Court, instead of refraining itself has, in fact, examined the evidence on record to find out; whether the said relationship existed or not. He further contends that the learned Industrial Court has acted without jurisdiction in recording a finding that there was an employer and employee relationship between the petitioners and members of respondent NO.1-Union. He further contends that the finding about nature of the petitioners being Engineering Industry as recorded is perverse. He further contends that the learned Industrial Court has acted without jurisdiction in recording a finding that there was an employer and employee relationship between the petitioners and members of respondent NO.1-Union. He further contends that the finding about nature of the petitioners being Engineering Industry as recorded is perverse. He contends that there is absolutely no evidence to substantiate and support the said finding. 5. He points out that in the written statement filed earlier before the Labour Court in reply to section 33-C(2) proceedings the definite stand was taken by the petitioners and it was placed on record that there is no employer and employee relationship between the parties. He states that the fact that the employees are, in fact, employees of the Contractor was specially pleaded in the written statement before the Labour Court. He states that, thereafter, this fact was again pleaded in reply to the ULP Complaint No. 1045/1999 before the Industrial Court and he further states that this fact has again come on record in the report of Investigating Officer. According to him, when the material available on record before the Industrial Court demonstrated that the members of respondent No.1 Union were employees of the Contractor Shri. Dilip Sagdeo, according to him, it was not open to the Industrial Court to go further into the matter to find out; whether really the said relationship existed or not. He states that it became apparent at this stage that the issue was disputed and as such the Industrial Court did not possess jurisdiction to enquire into the matter to hold after appreciating the evidence that the relationship existed. He argues that the learned Member, Industrial Court has, in fact, appreciated the material available on record and has found that the stand taken by employer is false. According to him, this is beyond jurisdiction. In support of this, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vividh Kamgar Sabha Vs. Kalyani Steels Ltd. And another, AIR 2001 Supreme Court 1534 : [2001(1) ALL MR 860 (S.C.)]; Cipla Ltd. Vs. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union and others, AIR 2001 Supreme Court 1165; Nagaraj Gowda and others Vs. Tata Hydro Electric Power Supply Company Ltd., Mumbai and others, 2003(4) Mh.L.J. 619 ; Division Bench Judgment of this High Court in Hindustan Coca Cola Bottling S/W Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union and others, AIR 2001 Supreme Court 1165; Nagaraj Gowda and others Vs. Tata Hydro Electric Power Supply Company Ltd., Mumbai and others, 2003(4) Mh.L.J. 619 ; Division Bench Judgment of this High Court in Hindustan Coca Cola Bottling S/W Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bhartiya Kamgar Sena & Ors., 2001(3) CLR 1025. He, therefore, contends that in this view of the matter when the Industrial Court did not possess jurisdiction to entertain the complaint itself, the finding delivered by it about the Industry being an Engineering Industry is without jurisdiction. He prays for quashing and setting aside the impugned orders. 6. Advocate Charpe, who appears for respondent No.1-Trade Union has argued that respondent No.1-Trade Union has never stated that any of its members were employees of the Contractor. He contends that in application under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and also in complaint before the Industrial Court, its specific case was that the Members of respondent No.1-Trade Union were direct employees of the petitioners. He states that in defense the petitioners have come up with a case that the Members are not their employees and are employees of one Contractor. He points out that in complaint it was specifically pleaded that the employees were engaged in manufacturing of steel bushes and, therefore the activity was an engineering activity and hence the minimum wages fixed for that activity under the Minimum Wages Act ought to have been paid to those members. He states that in reply the stand taken was that the members were engaged in loading and unloading operation and those operations were got done through contractor. He contends that the burden to show that, the members of respondent No.1-Trade Union were engaged in loading and unloading operation and that it was got done through a Contractor, was upon the petitioners: It is argued that respondent No.1 was only required to show that its members were engaged in activity of manufacturing bushes and not in loading and unloading activity. He contends that respondent NO.1-Trade Union has successfully established that its members were engaged in the activity of manufacturing bushes and not in the loading and unloading operation. He further points out that it was never the defense of the present petitioners that activity of manufacturing of bushes was also got done through Contractor. He contends that respondent NO.1-Trade Union has successfully established that its members were engaged in the activity of manufacturing bushes and not in the loading and unloading operation. He further points out that it was never the defense of the present petitioners that activity of manufacturing of bushes was also got done through Contractor. He points out that the defense taken in the written statement was specific and it was not a defense that the activities of manufacturing the bushes was also entrusted to the Contractor. The finding reached by the Industrial Court that work of manufacturing bushes was, in fact, got done from members of respondent NO.1-Trade Union, is itself sufficient to hold that defense of the petitioners about existence of Contractor in between has been found to be false. According to him, when there was no such defense in relation to the activity of bushes manufacturing, the approach ofIndustrial Court in this respect cannot be faulted with. He relied upon the judgments on which the learned counsel for the petitioners have place reliance and also judgment of this Court in Shekoba Auto Pvt. Ltd. Vs. B. D. Hajare and others; 2006(4) Mh.L.J. 43 . According to him when respondent No.1 has succeeded in showing that the work of loading and unloading was not got done through its members, the existence of Contractor for that work becomes totally irrelevant. He, therefore, submits that the order passed by the Industrial Court needs to be maintained. He further states that the finding in relation to Engineering Industry is, therefore, depending upon the nature of manufacturing activity, which is found to be bushes manufacturing. 7. He points out that immediately after filing the complaint, respondent No.1Trade Union sought appointment of Investigating Officer and that appointment was deliberately delayed. He states that the Investigating Officer deliberately visited the premises of petitioners after expiry of about 23 to 24 days and, during this period, the entire evidence available at the site to show that the work of bushes manufacturing was undertaken there was removed. He points out that still the machinery like lathe machine, cutting machine, welding machines and Drill machines were noticed by the Investigating Officer in the establishment. According to him, therefore, the report of Investigating Officer is not against respondent No.1 at all. 8. The learned A.G.P. has also supported the order of Industrial Court. 9. He points out that still the machinery like lathe machine, cutting machine, welding machines and Drill machines were noticed by the Investigating Officer in the establishment. According to him, therefore, the report of Investigating Officer is not against respondent No.1 at all. 8. The learned A.G.P. has also supported the order of Industrial Court. 9. The basic defense of the employer before this Court is that the employees were working under the Contractor. However, the case of the employees is that they were engaged in manufacturing process i.e. of making bushes, while the case of the petitioners is that they were employed in loading and unloading operation. As already stated above, it is not the defence of the petitioners-employer that any Contractor was engaged by it for manufacturing bushes. In these circumstances, therefore, the first question, which becomes relevant is the actual work for which employees were engaged. This issue is considered by the learned Member, Industrial Court at length from paragraph 26 onwards. It has found that one employee by name Amrut Bhujade was admittedly working in the unit of the petitioners. Shri. Bakhle, witness of petitioners, has also admitted this position. His name was not found appearing in the attendance sheets produced on record by the employer. His name was also not appearing in wage-cum-attendance register produced as Exhs.238, 339 and 240 by Contractor Shri. Dilip Sagdeo. The employee has deposed that Shri. Amrut Bhujade was working on lathe Machine with petitioners and was preparing steel bushes. His name was not found appearing in any register. The fact is also admitted by the Contractor Shri. Sagdeo and on the basis of material, the Industrial Court has drawn inference that the petitioners employer wanted to hide that they were preparing steel bushes in their workshop. In this respect, the other evidence, which is available on record is also considered by the Industrial Court. The employees have pointed out that the raw material required for making of bushes was issued by petitioners-employer to them on various occasions. This is also accepted, by witness for employer Shri. Bakhle. The Industrial Court noticed that Shri. Bakhle has not given any explanation as to what happened of this material after it was given to the employees. It has, therefore, drawn inference that it was being issued to employee for manufacturing of steel bushes required by employer for construction of bridges. This is also accepted, by witness for employer Shri. Bakhle. The Industrial Court noticed that Shri. Bakhle has not given any explanation as to what happened of this material after it was given to the employees. It has, therefore, drawn inference that it was being issued to employee for manufacturing of steel bushes required by employer for construction of bridges. The Industrial Court has also noticed in paragraph 27 that an envelope, on which the premises of the petitioners were mentioned as "Central Workshop", and the Contractor Dilip Sagdeo of M/s. Ashadeep Udyogh has also sent a letter to the employer by mentioning the premises as "Central Workshop" and has found that envelopes also were admittedly got printed by Employer. Therefore, it revealed that the premises at Nagpur were not merely used as stockyard, but it was a Central Workshop. It has, thereafter, found that the stickers Exhs.32 to 36 were produced on record by the employees and its pointing and ownership was admitted by the employer. The stickers and monogram of steel bushes and petitioners-employer was shown as its manufactures. Shri. Bakhle, Works Manager, admitted in his evidence that the sticks were printed by the employer and they were to be pasted on the boxes, which contains steel bushes, while sending those boxes to the respective sites of construction. The Industrial Court has also noticed one more circumstance. A letter Exh.163, which was forwarded by Shri. Bakhle, Works Manager to the Office of labour. He informs the Labour Office that the contract to supply bushes to their Company, was given to M/s. Ashadeep Udyogh and before the Industrial Court he admitted the contents of said letter at Exh.163 to be correct. Shri. Dilip Sagdeo, husband of proprietor of M/s. Ashadeep Udyogh was examined as its witness by petitioners-employer. The said witness, during his cross-examination, stated that he never manufactured steel bushes for petitioners employer and he had not taken contract from them to supply steel bushes. He has also stated that the statement of Shri. Bakhle about any such contract given to M/s. Ashadeep Udyogh was incorrect. Shri. Bakhle has also stated in his evidence that there was separate Engineering Company at Nagpur, to which the Head Office of employer has given contract of manufacturing bushes. He also pointed out one more Company by name "Spark Automatic Company", for that purpose. Shri. Bakhle has also stated in his evidence that there was separate Engineering Company at Nagpur, to which the Head Office of employer has given contract of manufacturing bushes. He also pointed out one more Company by name "Spark Automatic Company", for that purpose. The Industrial Court has, therefore, found that Shri. Bakhle has made false and misleading statements in letter Exh.163 forwarded to Labour Office. In the cross-examination, Shri. Bakhle has admitted that there was no third company, which manufacturers bushes for employer and, he further admitted that there was no contract with M/s. Ashadeep Udyogh for supply of bushes. In this background, the Industrial Court has considered the report of Investigating Officer. It has found that the visit of Investigating Officer to the establishment of employer was after 23 to 24 days of the order passed by it. It further found that the Investigating' Officer has noticed that there were four lathe machines, one shaper machine, one cutting machine, one grinding machine and one drilling machine in the establishment of the employer. The Investigating Officer has found that all these machines are lying idle and no persons were working on these machines. The work of testing of bushes was carried out by the testing machines and in the report it was mentioned that all these machines were kept in closed covers. The Investigating Officer has also reported that there was no separate workshop and no activity for the purpose of manufacturing of steel bushes was going on. The learned Member, Industrial Court has considered this material in the light of other evidence, which has come on record and found that this material also supported the stand that work of manufacturing of bushes was earlier going on in the workshop of employer and it was discontinued after filing of the complaint before the Industrial Court. It found that there was no explanation as to why all these lathe machines were lying idle in the workshop of the employer. It found that these machines are not required for the construction of bridges and can be used for manufacturing steel parts and items. It, therefore, arrived at finding that these machines were used for manufacturing of steel bushes in their workshop by petitioners-employer and after filing of the complaint, they discontinued that activity. It found that these machines are not required for the construction of bridges and can be used for manufacturing steel parts and items. It, therefore, arrived at finding that these machines were used for manufacturing of steel bushes in their workshop by petitioners-employer and after filing of the complaint, they discontinued that activity. In view of this evidence, it also recorded the finding that -Industry -of the petitioners was an Engineering Industry. Existence of this machinery is neither explained by employer to Investigating Officer or the Industrial Court nor said fact or purpose of these machines is explained to this Court. 10. One of the employees Shri. Jambhulkar, who was examined by the employees before the Industrial Court, stated that after shifting of machines, which were used for manufacture of steel bushes, employer started getting other works from these workers. The said work was of repairing of machines coming to the workshop of employer from various sites. He also stated that 6 to 7 employees were removed by the employer from their service and only six were left in the service. He deposed that Shri. Mokashi, Clerk of petitioners, was paying wages to these employees and also he did not know M/s. Ashadeep Udyogh and employees of petitioners have no concern with the said Ashadeep Udyogh. He stated that they were doing the work of manufacturing steel bushes. 11. The Industrial Court has, thereafter, considered the question; whether these employees were doing the work of loading and unloading? The witness for petitioners employer deposed before the Industrial Court that they were doing loading and unloading work. However, both of them have stated that the said work was not available continuously and its availability was uncertain. It has come on record that if the said work was available on one day, it would not be available on the next day or shortly thereafter. The Contractor Shri. Sagdeo has stated in his evidence that for loading and unloading of one .truck, he was getting Rs.160/- (Rs. One Hundred and Sixty Only). The Industrial Court has compared his testimony with the documents, which have come on record i.e. three registers at Exhs.238 to 240. These registers reveal that the employees were getting work daily and they were paid their salary accordingly. One Hundred and Sixty Only). The Industrial Court has compared his testimony with the documents, which have come on record i.e. three registers at Exhs.238 to 240. These registers reveal that the employees were getting work daily and they were paid their salary accordingly. The Industrial Court found that these employees were required to remain present in factory from about 8.30 a.m. and they were used to remain present everyday till 5.00 p.m. It also found that they were given weekly off on Wednesday. The Industrial Court has also noticed that both these witnesses for employer did not state that daily the work of loading and unloading was going on in the stock yard of the petitioners and it was being done by these employees. It is noticed that even on 23-04-1992, when the Investigating Officer visited the factory, the employees were found present and his report discloses that they were doing loading and unloading work at that time. The Investigating Officer has noticed in his report that apart from loading the work of shifting of goods from one place to another was carried out by the Contractor's labours. However, the witnesses for employer remain silent on this point. The Industrial Court has concluded that if employees were doing the work of loading and unloading their daily attendance was not required and it found that the records produced before the Industrial Court disclosed that work was available everyday, all these employees remain busy for entire day. From these, it is concluded that these employees were not doing the work of loading and unloading. It found that though registers were submitted by Contractor Shri. Sagdeo, claiming to be his registers, the registers were not maintained by the Contractor and were maintained by the petitioners employer. It found that six employees mentioned by the Union in its letters at Exh.163 were working as helpers and Shri. Amrut Bhujade was working as operator. He was being paid fixed salary of Rs.400/- per month plus Rs.10/ - as washing allowance as has been reported by the Investigating Officer in his report. Report also mentioned that Shri. Bhujade was to be paid Rs.50/- extra if he worked without break. 12. These findings reached by the learned Member, Industrial Court are on the basis of evidence, which is available on record. Report also mentioned that Shri. Bhujade was to be paid Rs.50/- extra if he worked without break. 12. These findings reached by the learned Member, Industrial Court are on the basis of evidence, which is available on record. I perused the entire evidence with the assistance of both the learned counsel and I find that the findings are not in any way perverse. The stand' of the petitioners-employer that employees were engaged in loading and loading work is, therefore, apparently incorrect and the conclusion drawn by the Industrial Court, in this respect, is, therefore, justified. 13. From the evidence and findings, it is apparent that the activity of steel bush manufacturing was going on in the workshop of the petitioners. It is, therefore, apparent that the learned Member, Industrial Court was right in treating the same as Engineering Industry. 14. It is, therefore, clear that the employees were not doing the loading and unloading work as sought to be urged by the petitioners. The petitioners have failed to prove that the employees were doing the said loading and unloading work. The Contractor, admittedly was there only for loading and unloading work. When the employees were not performing the said work, there is no question of any relationship between the said Contractor and workers/employees. The stand of the petitioners that the respondent were, therefore, employees of the Contractor is incorrect. Had the petitioners proved that the employees were performing the work of loading and unloading, the question whether the Industrial Court possessed the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon disputed question of employer and employee relationship; would have arisen. However, as is apparent the petitioners-employer have failed to prove that the employees were doing the work, which was allotted by them to a Contractor, such question does not fall for consideration at all. The findings recorded by the Industrial Court in this respect, therefore, are not perverse. The judgments on which the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance in this respect are, therefore, not relevant. 15. The judgment of this Court in Nagaraj Gowda and others Vs. Tata Hydro Electric Power Supply Company Ltd. Mumbai and others (supra) was cited to contend that the existence of employer and employee relationship must be disclosed from contents of the complaint itself. 15. The judgment of this Court in Nagaraj Gowda and others Vs. Tata Hydro Electric Power Supply Company Ltd. Mumbai and others (supra) was cited to contend that the existence of employer and employee relationship must be disclosed from contents of the complaint itself. The learned counsel has contended that the employees have nowhere stated that they were not the employees of Contractor and they have nowhere asserted that they were not doing loading and unloading operation. Perusal of complaint filed by the employees as also their evidence show that the employees mentioned that they were doing the work of manufacturing of steel bushes and they also claimed that they were employed by the petitioners. In paragraph 4 of complaint they have stated that they were working on "Hiska Machine", mentioned name of Shri. Bhujade as operator and also stated cutting and then drilling by lathe machines. They have nowhere accepted the presence of Contractor at all in the activity. It is apparent that they have also not accepted that they were doing the work of loading and unloading. In these circumstances, the ruling, on which the reliance is sought to be placed, has got no application here. In Nagaraj Gowda and others Vs. Tata Hydro Electric Power supply Company Ltd., Mumbai and others (supra) the employees were working in canteen in the premises of respondent Company and though canteen contractor changed time to time, these workers remained the same. Effort of employees in High Court was to trace relationship with company in view of Section 3(14) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act. 16. The written statement filed by the petitioners before the Labour Court in Section 33-C(2) proceeding also reveals that stand of the petitioners-employer there was that employees were doing loading and unloading work on contract basis. However, name of the Contractor has not been mentioned in the said written statement. Even in the written statement filed before the Industrial Court, in the present matter, the identity of Contractor has not been disclosed and identity of Contractor has come on record for the first time in the report of the Investigating Officer. The report of Investigating Officer also does not consider certain vital aspects. Even in the written statement filed before the Industrial Court, in the present matter, the identity of Contractor has not been disclosed and identity of Contractor has come on record for the first time in the report of the Investigating Officer. The report of Investigating Officer also does not consider certain vital aspects. When the Investigating Officer found that lathe Machines, cutting machines, welding machines, drilling machines were available at the site of employer, he has not made any effort to find out; why those machines were lying at that site. The report also shows that at the time of visit by the Investigating Officer, he found that the employer has sold some scrap material to a Bombay merchant and the workers of that Bombay merchant were doing the work of sorting that scrap material. It has also mentioned that the Investigating Officer found that the workers, including Shri. Amrut Bhujade were carrying the goods from one place to another and were not found working on cutting machines. However, these observations are not relevant because of findings reached by the Industrial Court that after filing complaint, the employer stopped manufacturing activity of steel bushes at site. Investigating Officer has not tried to ascertain why huge scrap was generated in the establishment. It is to be noted that name of Amrut Bhujade was not mentioned in any attendance register with the 'employer and even any attendance register with the Contractor. This fact is also not considered by the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer has found that machines were lying idle and also were kept in closed covers and were not functioning. He found that on some machines labels were pasted for sale. Employees had pointed out to Investigating Officer that they were working on various machines at stock yard. He was also informed that work of loading and unloading was available only once or twice in a month. However, beyond recording of statements, Investigating Officer has not used his expertise at all. It is, therefore, clear that the Investigating Officer has not undertaken any trouble at all to find out; whether in near past any manufacturing activity was being carried out in the workshop of the employer. Industrial Court has correctly assessed said report. 17. In these circumstances, exercise of jurisdiction and approach of Industrial Court is neither perverse nor erroneous. It is, therefore, clear that the Investigating Officer has not undertaken any trouble at all to find out; whether in near past any manufacturing activity was being carried out in the workshop of the employer. Industrial Court has correctly assessed said report. 17. In these circumstances, exercise of jurisdiction and approach of Industrial Court is neither perverse nor erroneous. I find that no case is made out for interference in the writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. Rule is discharged. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no orders as to costs. 18. Advocate Ghate states that operation of this judgment be stayed for a period of eight weeks. Advocate Charpe states that the employees are already working. Advocate Ghate however states that they are being paid without any work. In these circumstances, parties to maintain status quo as on today for a period of eight weeks from today. Order accordingly.