Order The present writ petition has been preferred for issuance of a writ of certioran or any other order or direction for quashing the award dated 8th October, 1999, passed In Reference Case No. 22 of 1991, whereby, the learned Presiding Officer, Labour C0urt, has held that no industrial dispute, as defined under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, existed or apprehended in between M/s 1 ala Iron & Steel Company Ltd. (in short 'TISCO') Management and the petitioners herein at the time of making reference. 2. The facts, in brief, as submitted by the counselor the petitioners, is set out as under: The petitioners were employed by the erstwhile Indian Tube Company between the year 1983 and 1985. It is submitted that on 1.8.1989 the petitioners along with Sri M.K. Jha raised a demand before the Management through a letter, addressed to the Secretary to the Recreation Club of TISCO Tube Division, Jamshedpur, for parity and proper wages, based on which a conciliation proceeding was initiated by the statutory authority in which the Management of TISCO also participated. The demands were not fulfilled and, accordingly, a failure report was submitted. The Government of Bihar vide its Notification dated 19.6.1991 referred the Industrial dispute to respondent NO.1 for adjudication. The reference is quoted as under: 1. Whether the workmen of TISCO Tubes Recreation Club, Baridih, Jamshedpur are entitled to get pay scale and other benefits admissible to the workmen of TISCO Welfare Department, Community Development Centre Hospital, Health Department and Electrical Department? If affirmative, then what pay they are entitled to and from what? 2. Whether the workmen of TISCO Tubes Division Recreation Club, Baridih. Jamshedpur should be treated as the workmen of TISCO Tubes Division or not? 3. Pleadings were completed and written submissions were also filed in Reference Case No. 22 of 1991. It appears that respondent NO.2, TISCO, filed a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 2357 of 1991 (R), questioning the maintainability of reference made under Section. 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act. This Hon'ble Court disposed of the said writ petition vide order dated 19.11.1991 with the following directions: "In view of the fact that the petitioner may raise the contentions raised in this writ application before respondent NO.1 who may decide the jurisdictional points raised by the petitioner, we are not inclined to entertain this writ application at this stage." 4. This Hon'ble Court disposed of the said writ petition vide order dated 19.11.1991 with the following directions: "In view of the fact that the petitioner may raise the contentions raised in this writ application before respondent NO.1 who may decide the jurisdictional points raised by the petitioner, we are not inclined to entertain this writ application at this stage." 4. Thereafter, witnesses were examined from both sides and sever3.1 documents, which were exhibited, were also considered. Finally the impugned award under challenge dated 8.10.1999 was passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur vide which the learned Labour Court held as under: "On the basis of above discussed facts and circumstances, I come to the conclusion that no industrial dispute as defined under Section 2(k) of the Act exist or apprehended in between the TISCO Management and the four claimants at the time of making reference. As such the reference is bad and incompetent and the same is not maintainable. " 5. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, challenging the aforesaid award. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent NO.2 has submitted that there was no employer-employee relationship and the Hon'ble High Court specifically on their petition while disposing of the writ petition gave liberty to them to raise the jurisdictional points before respondent No. 1 and finally after hearing the arguments, the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur, came to the conclusion that no industrial dispute as defined under Section 2(k) of the Act existed between the TISCO Management and the claimants/petitioners at the time of making reference. The counsel for the respondents further submits that the issue has attained finality and, accordingly, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further argued that the impugned award was illegal and there were overwhelming evidences to show and prove the relationship of workmen and management between the petitioners and respondent No.2. They have also contended that their demand was valid and legal and the award was contrary to the provisions of Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act and further it was violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India. 8. I have perused the documents on record and also the impugned award. They have also contended that their demand was valid and legal and the award was contrary to the provisions of Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act and further it was violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India. 8. I have perused the documents on record and also the impugned award. Before coming to the merits of the matter, it is relevant to point out that the petitioners, in their writ petition, have specifically contended that the Tube Division is one of the Divisions of respondent No. 2 and was taken over by Tata Iron & Steel Company Ltd. in or about the year, 1986 and the activities of the erstwhile company has been made as one of the Divisions of TISCO Ltd. and since then the persons employed in Tube Division became the employees of TISCO Ltd. The Welfare Department is also one of such Departments, which maintains the creativity, health and educational needs of the employees or their wards. It has been further contended that the employees of Recreation Club are the employees of respondent No.2. It is further submitted that the buildings of Recreation Club was owned by the TISCO Ltd. and the electric and water facility is also provided by TISCO, including the security and the day to day maintenance along with fixture and furniture. The Management of Recreation Club is also governed by the Company by deputing its officers in various capacity and all the office bearers are officers of TISCO Ltd. Even the disciplinary power with respect to the petitioners vests with Tube Division of TISCO Ltd. 9. The learned Presiding Officer. Labour Court, Jamshedpur, rejected the claim of the petitioners only on the ground that no industrial dispute, as defined under Section 2(k) existed or apprehended between the TISCO Management and the petitioners. 10. Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act is quoted hereunder: "industrial dispute" means any dispute' or difference between employer and employers, or between employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour, or any person;" 11. 10. Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act is quoted hereunder: "industrial dispute" means any dispute' or difference between employer and employers, or between employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour, or any person;" 11. The learned Presiding Officer has proceeded on the basis that the statement of demand has not been addressed to the TISCO Management and it has further held that the claimants/petitioners have prayed only to enhance their wages and at paragraph 17 of the impugned award it holds that the term of reference is in accordance with the statement of demand but at the same time it is also clear that the above demand has neither been put before the TISCO Management nor any notice has been issued to TISCO Management for taking part in conciliation proceedings. 12. The aforesaid finding of the learned Presiding Officer appears to be erroneous. On a bare reading of Annexure1 dated 1.8.1989, which is addressed to the Secretary, Recreation Club of TISCO Tube Division, demanding proper wages before the Management, it appears that on the basis of aforesaid demand a conciliation proceeding was initiated by the statutory authority in which the Management participated and when the demands were not fulfilled, a failure report was submitted and, thus, the learned Presiding Officer has committed an error, apparent on record, in holding that TISCO, respondent NO.2, did not take any part in the conciliation proceedings. In any event, the representation has to be routed through the Secretary, who also happened to be an official of TISCO. As per Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, any dispute or difference between employer and employer or between employer and workmen or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or non-employment attracts the reference based on industrial dispute. This fact is further corroborated by the reference itself in view of the failure of the conciliation proceedings, which became a cause for the workmen through the Trade Union to raise a dispute on behalf of the workmen of Recreation Club and the Government, accordingly, referred it for adjudication before the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur. The reason assigned by the learned Presiding Officer at para 21 is also erroneous and self contradictory and is clearly unsustainable in the eyes of law. 13. The reason assigned by the learned Presiding Officer at para 21 is also erroneous and self contradictory and is clearly unsustainable in the eyes of law. 13. The learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur, has proceeded on an erroneous footing by holding that the claimants have prayed only to enhance their wages. The same is an error, apparent on record and even on a bare reading of reference, it will be proved that the learned Presiding Officer has erred and misdirected itself and on this ground alone, the award deserves to be set aside. Apart from parity of pay scale, a specific reference was made as to whether the workmen could be treated as the workmen of TISCO Tubes Division. The learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, has further erred in not even referring to or considering the voluminous documents marked as Ext. W series, which could have easily demonstrated the claim of the workmen about their status and the truth that they were actually workmen of TISCO Management. 14. The fact remains that the Recreation Club is controlled, managed and looked after by respondent No. 2 and. thus, the finding recorded at paragraph no. 17 and 18 of the impugned award is contrary to the facts and documents on record and, thus, unsustainable in the eyes of law. The learned Presiding Officer has also failed to appreciate that it was required to adjudicate the reference instead of rejecting it on the ground of aintainability. In this regard it is relevant to refer to A.I.R. 1989 SC'1565 (Telco Drivers Mazdoor Sangh vs. State of Bihar), wherein, in a similar situation while interpreting Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the power of the Government, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the power to adjudicate vests with the Tribunal of a valid dispute and if the same is allowed for the Government to do so, it will render Section 10 and Section 12(5) of the Act nugatory. Meaning thereby, the conferment of jurisdiction under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act is clearly well defined that the Government has to refer the matter, it cannot delve into the merits or decide the lis. Simultaneously upon reference, the learned Tribunal is required to adjudicate the dispute referred after trial. Meaning thereby, the conferment of jurisdiction under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act is clearly well defined that the Government has to refer the matter, it cannot delve into the merits or decide the lis. Simultaneously upon reference, the learned Tribunal is required to adjudicate the dispute referred after trial. In the instant case, the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, instead of adjudicating the dispute on merits has by a detailed speaking order rejected the same on the ground of maintainability and that also on an erroneous interpretation of facts and law. 15. The learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court. has at para 21 clearly erred In giving an extraneous ground and reasoning for holding that the reference was bad and incompetent. Paragraph no. 21 of the impugned award is quoted as under: "It has also been argued on behalf of the Management that the dispute relates to the wages and if any award is passed in the instant case, then it will certainly affect more than 100 workers, in the circumstances, it should be referred to Industrial Tribunal, not to the Labour Court." 16. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the erstwhile Indian Tube Company merged with TISCO Management in the year, 1986 and after merger, the Indian Tube Company has become Tube Division of TISCO and the activities of erstwhile Company has been made as one of the Divisions of -TISCO Ltd. and since then the persons employed in Tube Company became the employees of TISCO Ltd. Respondent No. 2 has got various departments under its own Welfare Department, which maintains the creativity, health, educational needs of the employees or their wards and provides housing accommodation and other allied facilities to Its employees. In order to fulfill its obligation towards welfare of the employees and their family members, respondent No. 2 runs and maintains hospital, dispensary, schools community centre and recreation club and, thus, the employees in the re-creation club are also the employees of respondent NO.2 directly governed by the Department of Welfare. In order to fulfill its obligation towards welfare of the employees and their family members, respondent No. 2 runs and maintains hospital, dispensary, schools community centre and recreation club and, thus, the employees in the re-creation club are also the employees of respondent NO.2 directly governed by the Department of Welfare. This is not a case of persons working in a canteen, run by a contractor, instead the Exhibits filed, which include payment slip, medical, identity card, notices issued by and on behalf of respondent NO.2, house allotment letter, other correspondences and also the notices, issued by R.P.F. Commissioner, Bihar, clearly reflected that they were under direct employment and control of respondent No. 2 and there was no intermediary. The learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, completely ignored and failed to consider the aforesaid documents, which were duly exhibited. The Re-creation Club is totally governed by respondent NO.2. which also has a total disciplinary control over its workmen and even the wages are paid by it and, thus, the control is not only what to do but how to do. The learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, was further not justified in holding the reference to be incompetent and not maintainable after pendency of the reference for more than eight years. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka VS. KGSD Canteen Employees' Welfare Association, reported in (2006)1 SCC 567 [ : 2006(2) JLJR (SC)113] while referring to and relying upon the decision, rendered in the case of Rajasthan SRTC VS. Zakir Hussain, reported in (2005)7 SCC 447 at paragraph no. 42 held as under: "42. Yet recently, this Court In Rajasthan SRTC vs. Zakir Hussain in the context of the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court vis-a-vis the civil court highlighted the object of the Industrial Disputes Act stating: (SCC p. 462, para 30) "30. The object of the Industrial Disputes Act, as its preamble indicates, is to make provision for the investigation and settlement of industrial disputes, 'which means adjudication of such disputes also. 17. In the aforesaid background, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned Award passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur. The object of the Industrial Disputes Act, as its preamble indicates, is to make provision for the investigation and settlement of industrial disputes, 'which means adjudication of such disputes also. 17. In the aforesaid background, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned Award passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur. dated 8th October, 1999 is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Labour Court to decide the reference on merits on the basis of the records already available, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There will be no order as to costs.