ORDER : The petitioner submits that he prefers this writ petition to issue writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other writ or order or direction in the nature of writ, to call for the records relating to impugned letter in reference No-L-42011/07/2015 – IR(DU) dated 29.01.2015, on the file of the first respondent and quash the same and further direct the first respondent to make and reference the said industrial dispute before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Chennai, for adjudication based on the failure of conciliation report No.8/28/2014/PDY under Section 12(4) I.D. Act dated 13.01.2015, on the file of the second respondent of the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Puducherry for the reasons set out here under. 2. The petitioenr submits that the Bharath Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL) is established by Government of India at Thiruvarambur, Trichy – District, State of Tamil Nadu in the year 1962 for manufacturing of heavy boilers. In addition to regular employees, to carry out the regular and permanent work without any hindrance, the management of BHEL established the BHEL Complex Co-Operative Labour, Contract Society under the registration in registration No.YT-11 which is registered under Section 9(1) of Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act 1961 (Act 53 of 61) on 05.07.1978. 3. The petitioner submits that from the inception of the said society, the members are eligible to work in the BHEL company. The members of the said society are in and around the villages of Thiruvarambur. They are engaged by the BHEL company under the contract basis. The members of the said society is registered with Labour Commissioner, Trichy in Registration No.600/-. Most of the members of the said society is also affiliated to the petitioner's union called as Dravidar labour union which is a registered one. The object of the said labour union is to look after the welfare of its members in the BHEL complex Co-operative Society had 1174 members working in the BHEL from the period 1978 onwards in various sections like Gas plants, Stainless steel tube plant (SSTP), Pipe cuttings, Hot Mill, Cole Mill, Shipping, Water supply, Hospital – Nurse, Attender, Stores and sanitation, Rigger, Loading and Unloading, Factory oxygen plant (F.O.P.), Sand plasting, Securities, Attenders, stores in all sections, kitchen – cook supply and service and cleaning, Floor Car, Gardeners and Guest house / Cook and cleaning etc. 4. 4. The petitioner submits that the job carried out by the members are regular in nature and working on par with the regular employees of the BHEL. But they are not equally treated with regular employees and paid lesser pay and other benefits compared to the regular employees. The said members of the society though worked under the Labour Contract Society, they are under the direct supervision and control of the BHEL. The said company is view with to reduce expenditure on work force established under the system of contract Labour which is unfair labour practice. 5. The petitioner further submits that during their period of service, the said company provided its employee's identity card / Punching card for attendance, Provident Fund, ESI, Gratuity, bonus and pension, but equal salary on par with the permanent employees has not been given. The qualifications of the members of the said society are 1.Diploma Holders, 2.Degree Holders, 3.I.T.I. like Welder, Fitter, Blacksmith, etc. 4.Nurse, 5.Aaya, 6.SSLC and 7.below SSLC qualification are working in the BHEL as unskilled labourers. But they are working along with permanent employees in various units. They are working equal with permanent employees from the inception of the society. Some of the employees under the contract have retired from service without getting any benefits on par with the permanent employees but the work is same for both and their work is perennial in nature. The special officer of the society is an officer of the BHEL. The persuasive control of the said society is always with BHEL on account of their strategic position in the Board of Management. The BHEL recommends the candidature for appointment to Board like Special officer and majority nomination in the said society. Disciplinary proceedings are initiated at the instance of BHEL against the workman of the society and wages to be paid to the members of the society including revision of wages are decided only by BHEL. The work contract through the society is not a genuine one and it is only a sham and nominal arrangement between BHEL and the society so as to prevent the workers to be regularly absorbed as regular workers of BHEL and denial of conferment of benefits as payable to the regular employees of BHEL. 6. The work contract through the society is not a genuine one and it is only a sham and nominal arrangement between BHEL and the society so as to prevent the workers to be regularly absorbed as regular workers of BHEL and denial of conferment of benefits as payable to the regular employees of BHEL. 6. The petitioner further submits that in the earlier occasion, the petitioner herein requested to increase the retirement age from 58 to 60 years on par with the regular employees but it was rejected by the management of the BHEL. The petitioner raised the disparity of the retirement age between the regular employee and the contract employee as industrial dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Puducherry, Ministry of Labour and employment. The petitioner's union request was considered by the Assistant Labour Commissioner and passed an order in proceedings No.M.B.(16)/2013-PDY, dated 29.03.2012 to consider the demand for raising the superannuation was age from 58 to 60 to avoid discrimination. Finally the superannuation was fixed as 60 years for contract workers on par with the permanent employees of the said BHEL, Trichy. 7. The petitioner further submits that similar other units of BHEL situated in other states made the contract employees under the society are permanent in the respective BHEL limits. The petitioner herein, ascertaining the other facts by seeking information under the Right to Information Act from the Hardwar-BHEL unit in reference No.HWCPIO-090157 BHEL, Heavy electrical equipment plant, Ranipur, Hardware, dated 12.01.2010. The respondent herein are also made certain contract labours under the said society as absorbed as permanent employees namely as follows: Sl.No. Name of the staff Staff No. Society encrolment No. Date of Joining 1 Srinivasan 6037380 3282 30.07.2008 2 Gnanapandithan 6037402 1005 30.07.2008 3 M.Vijaykumar 6037321 4697 30.07.2008 4 Prasad .P.L 6037224 4903 30.07.2008 8. He submits that the petitioner herein made a representation on 29.09.2013 to the Chairman, BHEL, New Delhi to absorb and regularize the contract workers to BHEL, Tiruvarambur under the Labour Contract Society Registered No.YT-11 as permanent employee as done by the NLC Ltd. by complying the direction issued by the Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.1629 of 2011 and Hardware BHEL unit. But the management of BHEL rejected the request of the petitioner herein. 9. He submits that the rejection of the petitioner's representation, the petitioner raised industrial dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Puducherry. But the management of BHEL rejected the request of the petitioner herein. 9. He submits that the rejection of the petitioner's representation, the petitioner raised industrial dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Puducherry. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour after hearing on both sides and finally sent failure of consideration report under Section 12(4) of the I.D. Act, 1947 to the first respondent by its report No.8/28/2014PDY, dated 13.01.2015. The first respondent herein refused to refer the matter to the Central Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court for adjudication by its letter No.42011/07/2015-IR(DU) dated 29.01.2015. But in a similar issue which was raised by the contract Labour Union of Heavy Alloy Penetrator Project, Ministry of Defense, Trichy-25, the first respondent herein referred the said dispute before the industrial dispute tribunal for the adjudication vide its order No.4-14011/15/2007 (IR(DU) dated 15.02.2008. The industrial tribunal adjudicated the said dispute and passed an order to commence the process of regularization of contract labours. It clearly shows the discriminating attitude made against the petitioner union by the first respondent. 10. He submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in the case “Ram Avatar Sharma & Ors. Etc vs State of Haryana” in making a reference under Section 10(1) the appropriate Government performs an administrative act and not a judicial or quasi-judicial act and the fact that it has to form an opinion as to the factual existence of an industrial dispute: a preliminary step to the discharge of its function does not make it any the less administrative in character. Assuming that making or refusing to make a reference under Section 10(1) is a quasi-judicial function, there is bound to be a conflict of jurisdiction if the reference is ultimately made. A quasi-judicial function is to some extent an adjudicatory function in a list between two contending parties. The Government as an umpire, assuming that it is performing a quas-judicial function when it proceeds to make a reference. Would imply that the quasi judicial determination of this prima facie shows that one who raised the dispute has established merits of the dispute. The inference necessarily follows from the assumption that the function performed under Section 10(1) is a quasi judicial function. Would imply that the quasi judicial determination of this prima facie shows that one who raised the dispute has established merits of the dispute. The inference necessarily follows from the assumption that the function performed under Section 10(1) is a quasi judicial function. Now by exercising power under Section 10, a reference is made to a Tribunal for adjudication and the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that there was no merit in the dispute, prima facie a conflict of jurisdiction may emerge. Therefore, the view that while exercising power under Section 10(1) the function performed by the appropriate Government is an administrative function and not a judicial or quasi-judicial function is beyond the pale of controversy and held that it is well settled that where the Government purports to give reasons which tantamount to adjudication and refuses to make a reference, the appropriate Government could be said to have acted on extraneous, irrelevant grounds not germane to the determination and a writ of mandamus would lie calling upon the Government reconsider its decision. Hence, this writ petition is filed. 11. The first respondent has filed a counter statement which reads as follows:- The first respondent submits that as per the standing policy, the Ministry of Labour and Employment generally do not contest such cases, as the management concerned themselves can defend such decision of the Government before this Court. The Government will however, honour the orders of the Court whenever made by it. It is further submits that as follows:- a)As per sub-section (5) of Section 12 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, where the appropriate Government does not make a reference, it shall record and communicate to the parties concerned its reasons therefore; b)The Central Government has after examining the records made available to it, accordingly decided not torefer the dispute for adjudication and recorded/communicated to the parties concerned its reasons therefore vide letters. 12. He further submits that the impugned order dated 29.01.2015 clearly given reason why the ministry does not consider this dispute fit for adjudication -“there is no direct employer and employee relationship exists in the instant dispute, as the members belong to the society and they are fulfilling the contractual obligations. For which the case is not recommended for adjudication by the CGIT. For which the case is not recommended for adjudication by the CGIT. In the stated circumstances, this respondent submits the above facts for the consideration of this Court and prays this Court to pass suitable order / orders as deemed fit and proper and thus render justice. 13. The highly competent counsel Mr.D.Veerasekaran, appearing for the petitioner submits that the Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited has been established by Government of India at Trichy in the year 1962 for manufacturing of Heavy Boilers. In addition to regular employees, to carry out the regular and permanent work without any hindrance, the management of BHEL established the BHEL Complex Cooperative Labour Contract Society under the registration, registered under the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act. The members of the Society are eligible to work in the BHEL Company. The members are engaged by the BHEL Company under the contract basis. The society is also registered with Labour Commissioner, Trichy. Most of the members of the Society are also affiliated to the petitioner's Union called as Dravidar Labour Union. The members of the Society are working with the management from the year 1978 onwards in various Sections like Gas, Plants, Stainless Steel tube plants, pipe cuttings, Hot mill, shipping, water supply, etc. The members are carrying out the job in a regular basis and working on par with the regular employees of the BHEL. The management had not treated the employees equally with regular employees and also paying lesser emoluments. 14. However, the members of the society, though working under the labour contract society are under the direct supervision and control of the BHEL. Further, the management provided identity cards and maintaining attendance register and besides this the employees are covered under the Provident Fund, E.S.I., Gratuity, Bonus and Pension. The members of the society are possessing diplomas, degree, I.T.I. Holders, Nurse, etc. The unskilled workers and those who are possessing less educational qualification are working with the management in various units as permanent employees. The petitioner made request to the management to increase the retirement age from 58 to 60 years are make it equal to that of regular employees. But, the same was rejected. The petitioner raised the dispute regarding retirement age before the second respondent herein. The learned counsel further submits that the management / co-unit, Ranipet, Haridhwar had appointed contract labourers in the permanent post. But, the same was rejected. The petitioner raised the dispute regarding retirement age before the second respondent herein. The learned counsel further submits that the management / co-unit, Ranipet, Haridhwar had appointed contract labourers in the permanent post. Hence, the petitioner made a representation to the Chairman, BHEL, New Delhi. The same was rejected. Hence, the petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute before the second respondent herein. The same was refused to refer the matter to the Central Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court for adjudication. The identical issue, which was raised by the contract labour union of Heavy Alloy Penetrator project, Ministry of Defence, Trichy, the first respondent herein referred the said dispute before the Industrial Dispute Tribunal for adjudication. As such, the petitioner also is entitled to receive similar relief. 15. The quasi-judicial forum i.e. Central Industrial Tribunal – cum –Labour Court is the Competent authority to decide the issue after framing necessary issues and then carry out a comprehensive trial. The same was curtailed by the first respondent. Hence, the very competent counsel entreats the Court to give suitable directions to the first respondent to make and refer the said industrial dispute before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal for adjudication in order to determine the veracity of the case. The learned counsel has cited an unreported judgment which reads as follows:- “2.The first respondent herein raised an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which arose out of a collective dispute between the Canteen workers of BHEL – the first respondent and the appellant and the Indco Service Society Ltd., BHEL, Factory Complex, Ranipet – the second respondent, as to the claims made by the first respondent for their absorption as regular workers of BHEL. 3.The award dated 17.12.1999 was passed by the third respondent – Labour Court, Vellore, declaring that the Canteen workers of BHEL as regular workers of BHEL and they shall have such status from the date of demand with effect from 23.11.1987, with a further direction that they shall be fit-in incomparable grades/scales of regular workers of BHEL, subject to all the Service Rules, Regulations and Standing Orders and further that they are entitled to all the monetary benefits including the arrears of pay, subsequent pay revisions with effect from the effective date, i.e. 23.11.1987 and also service benefits with effect from the date to which the regular workers of BHEL are entitled to and other consequential reliefs.” 16. The highly competent counsel Mr.K.Ramanamoorthy appearing for the first respondent submits that as per sub section 5 of Section 12 of the Industrial Dispute Act, where the appropriate Government does not make a reference, if shall record and communicate to the parties concerned its reasons therefore. The learned counsel further submits that the dispute is not fit for adjudication, since there is no direct employer and employee relationship exists in the instant dispute. The members of the petitioner's Union are contract labourers and as such there is no nexus between the management and the petitioner's work force. Hence, the very competent Central Government counsel entreats the Court to dismiss the above writ petition, since valid reasons are assigned in the impugned order of the first respondent. 17. Per contra, the very competent counsel Mr.D.Veerasekaran submits that the petitioner's Society members are working under the supervision and control of the management. Besides the management had issued identity cards to the employees of the society / petitioner herein. Further, the management is also maintaining attendance registers, Provident Fund Schemes, E.S.I., Gratuity, Bonus, etc. Further, the members of the petitioner's Union are all possessing required educational qualification, skilled and unskilled. The highly competent counsel further submits that for deciding the issue between the management and the work force, a comprehensive adjudication is required before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal. If the matter is referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, the respondents herein and management will not be prejudiced. Hence, the learned counsel makes a deep request to give an opportunity to the members of the petitioner's Union to establish their case against the management for their remedy. If the matter is referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, the respondents herein and management will not be prejudiced. Hence, the learned counsel makes a deep request to give an opportunity to the members of the petitioner's Union to establish their case against the management for their remedy. The first respondent's order is violating principles of natural justice and also violating Act 14 and 21 of the Constitution, wherein the petitioner's Union members fundamental and personal rights have been protected. Further, in the instant case, several issues have arisen. All the issues have to be decided on the basis of documentary proof and on recording both sides evidence. Hence, the learned counsel requests the Court to allow the writ petition. 18. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and on perusing the typed set of papers, it is seen that the Co-units at Ranipet and Haridhwar have absorbed contract labourers in a regular post. Further, if the dispute is decided by the competent forum / quasi judicial Tribunal / Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, the management and the respondents herein would not be prejudiced. Further, the employees of the petitioner's Society have the rights to receive the relief against the management before the competent forum. Hence, this Court set aside the first respondent's impugned letter in Ref. No.-L-42011/07/2015–IR(DU) dated 29.01.2005, on the file of the first respondent. This Court directs the first respondent to make and reference the said industrial dispute between the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Chennai for adjudication based on the failure of conciliation report issued by the second respondent dated 13.01.2015, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 19.In the result, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.