JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner - Manager, Ultratech Cement Ltd., unit Aditya Cement Works, Adityapuram, District Chittorgarh has filed the present writ petition before this Court being aggrieved by the part of the impugned notification Annex.1 dated 13.6.2011 of the appropriate Government referring industrial dispute between the respondents - workmen and the petitioner - Company and the respondent No.3 (contractor for short) under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 after conciliation proceedings between the parties failed before the learned Dy. Labour Commissioner, Chittorgarh vide order dated 27.1.2011 (Annex.12). 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Harish Purohit vehemently submitted that the respondents - workmen were engaged and employed by the respondent No.3 - Contractor M/s Jagdish Trading Company only Cement Loading Contractor, Site Aditya Cement Works (Ultra Tech Cement Ltd.), Adityapuram, District Chittorgarh and they were never employed by the petitioner - Company by the petitioner - Company - Aditya Cement and therefore, while making reference of industrial dispute upon failure of conciliation proceedings, the competent authority of appropriate Government could not have referred the question No.1 of the tenor and nature as to whether the petitioner - company or the respondent No.3 - contractor was employer " fu;kstd " of the respondent - workmen and since admittedly the dispute was only with regard to payment of E-grade wages as recommended by the Cement Wage Board which dispute could arise only between the respondents - workmen and their employer, respondent No.3 Contractor M/s Jagdish Trading Company, therefore, the reference of question No.1 as framed is illegal and that shows non-application of mind on the part of the competent authority and reference to this extent deserves to be quashed by this Court. Hence the present writ petitions. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Mahesh Bora, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Nishant Boara appearing on behalf of the respondents - workmen opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner - company and submitted that this contention of petitioner - company was also raised before the Conciliation Officer, also, but since the conciliation between the three parties, namely, petitioner company, Contractor and workmen failed as a natural corollary, the industrial dispute was referred by the State Government to the Industrial Tribunal, Bhilwara as required under Section 10 of the Act. He also submitted that the petitioner - company was the Principal employer qua the workmen for the purpose of payment of E-grade wages for which dispute was raised and therefore, the petitioner - company cannot be permitted to raise this issue at this stage that the reference of question No.1 is illegal. He however, submitted that on the basis of evidence to be led by the parties, it is always open for the petitioner - company to contend before the Industrial Tribunal and establish that they are not principal employer of the respondents - workmen, but since the said issue is yet to be decided by the Industrial Tribunal, the reference of question No.1 in Annex.1 notification dated 13.6.2011 cannot be said to be illegal. He submitted that it would be premature for this Court to quash the question No.1 in Annex.1 notification dated 13.6.2011 which naturally arises out of failure of conciliation proceedings vide Annex.12 dated 27.1.2011. 4. Having heard the learned counsels, this Court is of the opinion that it would be premature to disjunct and dissect the two questions referred by the competent authority of the Labour Department of the respondent - State under Annex.1 notification dated 13.6.2011 at this stage. It is a question to be decided on the basis of evidence to be led by the parties as it is a mixed question of facts and law, which are essentially involved even in question No.1 even though the industrial dispute in question was raised essentially for payment of E-Grade wages as recommended by the Cement Wage Board to be paid to the loading and unloading workmen, including respondent No.2. The contention of the learned counsels for the petitioner - company, Mr. Harish Purohit that since the company held a licence under the provisions of Contract Labour (Prohibition) Act, 1970 and was permitted to engage such labour on contract basis it was therefore, not the Principal employer qua the respondent - workmen and the decision of question No.2, namely, of payment of E-grade wages would not affect the petitioner company. However, if such question is decided against them, both the parties, namely, the petitioner company and contractor can be jointly and severally held liable to pay such E-grade wages to the respondents - workmen. 5. However, if such question is decided against them, both the parties, namely, the petitioner company and contractor can be jointly and severally held liable to pay such E-grade wages to the respondents - workmen. 5. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that it is premature for this Court to exclude the petitioner - company from such industrial dispute at this stage of reference of the same by the competent authority to the Industrial Tribunal. This Court is of the further opinion that question No.1 in light of contentions raised by the petitioner - company, however, deserves to be decided as preliminary issue on the basis of evidence to be led by the parties before the Industrial Tribunal, Bhilwara before whom such reference has been made under Annex.1 dated 13.6.2011. It is needless to say that if the decision of preliminary issue on question No.1 is against the petitioner - company, it would be free to take appropriate legal remedy against the same. Even if such a situation arises in the matter, the dispute vide question no.2 can always be decided by the Industrial Tribunal, Bhilwara against the contractor- respondent No.3 M/s Jagdish Trading Company, who has not contested this position before this Court. 6. Therefore, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Industrial Tribunal, Bhilwara to decide Question No.1 referred to it under Annex.1 notification dated 13.6.2011 as a preliminary issue on the basis of evidence to be led by the parties and depending upon the determination of Question No.1, the Industrial Tribunal, Bhilwara may proceed to decide question No.2 with a liberty to the aggrieved party to challenge the decision on Question No.1 in appropriate legal forum. No order as to costs.Petition disposed of. *******