JUDGMENT 1. - Challenge in these four appeals is to the judgment dated July 16, 1993 of the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petitions of the appellant company were dismissed with the following directions : "On the basis of the above discussion, it is held that the provisions of the Industrial Disputes (Rajasthan Amendment) Act No.34 if 1958 are void to the extent it contains the definition of the 'workmen' which is inconsistent with the definition of the said terms as contained in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as amended by Central Amendment Act No. 46 of 1982. It is further held that in view of serious dispute between the parties on the question as to whether 1 the concerned workman is employed of the petitioner company or an employee of the contractor such disputed question can appropriately be decided only on the basis of oral and documentary evidence which the parties may lead before an appropriate adjudicatory forum constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1 1947 and there is no justification for quashing the order of reference passed by the Government in each of these petitions. On the basis of the above discussions, these writ petitions are dismissed. It is however ordered that the Labour Court Kota shall frame a preliminary issue about the status of the workman involved in each of these petitions. The Labour Court shall record a finding on that issue by considering the rival evidence. In case, it comes to the conclusion that the workman concerned was in fact an employee of the contractor it shall pass the award that the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act are not applicable. On the other hand if the Labour Court comes to the conclusion that the workman concerned was an employee of the company, it shall proceed to adjudicate on the propriety and legality of the termination of service of such workman. Parties are left to bear their own costs.'' 2. Contextual facts depict that the State Government vide Notification dated December 26. Parties are left to bear their own costs.'' 2. Contextual facts depict that the State Government vide Notification dated December 26. 1988 made reference in the following manner 1- D;k vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ds /kkjk 2 ( th ) esa jktLFkku la'kks/ku 1958 }kjk tksM+h xbZ mi/kkjk (III) ds vuqlkj bULVqesUVs'ku fy0 dksVk esa Bsdsnkj ds tfj;s fu;ksftr Jfed Jh f'kojkt flag ds e/; esa izcU/kd bULVqesUVs'ku dksVk gh fu;kstd gS rFkk blh dkuwu dh /kkjk 2 ,l esa blh la'kks/ku ds vUrxZr tksM+s x;s va'kksa ds vuqlkj Jfed mDr laLFkku dk odZeSu gS\ 2- D;k Jfed Jh f'kojkt flag ( ftldk izfrfuf/kRo egkea=h] bULVqesUVs'ku deZpkjh ;wfu;u dksVk us fd;k gS ) dks izcU/kd] bULVqesUVs'ku fy0 dksVk }kjk lsok ls i`Fkd~ djuk mfpr ,oa oS/k gS\ ;fn ugha rks Jfed fdl jkgr dks ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ In the complaint before the Conciliation Officer it was submitted by the respondent Instrumentation Karamchari Union that the concerned workman became workman of the appellant company (in short the Company) by virtue of the Rajasthan Amendment Act, 1958 whereby clause (iii) was added in section 2(g) and similar amendment in section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short ID Act). The company in its reply averred that the State Government had no jurisdiction to make reference since the workman was employee of the contractor and not of the company. 3. The company challenged the validity of the aforequoted reference before the learned Single Judge by filing writ petitions which were decided as indicated above. 4. We have heard the rival submissions. It is contended by learned counsel for the company that subject matter of reference is the pure question of law and Labour Court can not make inquiry into it under the provisions of ID Act. According to learned counsel since the services of workman were not terminated by the management of the company, point No.2 of the reference could not have been made. 5. We are afraid, we cannot agree to the submission for more than one reason. 6. A look at point No.2 of the reference clearly demonstrates that it was the manager of the company who terminated the services of the workman and this fact as to whether the workman was employee of company or not could only be resolved by the Labour Court a the recording the evidence of the parties. 7. 6. A look at point No.2 of the reference clearly demonstrates that it was the manager of the company who terminated the services of the workman and this fact as to whether the workman was employee of company or not could only be resolved by the Labour Court a the recording the evidence of the parties. 7. The reference of point No.2 was rightly made and it could not be held to be without jurisdiction. The question whether the relationship between the parties is one as between the employer and the employee is a pure question of fact and it could not be resolved in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. As a result of the above discussion, we find no merit in these appeals and the same accordingly stand dismissed without any order as to costs.Appeals Dismissed. *******