JUDGMENT : B.S. PATIL, J. 1. In this appeal, Managements of different Milk Unions have challenged the dismissal of their writ petitions vide order dated 13.01.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge. 2. In the writ petitions filed by the Managements, they had assailed the order of reference of the industrial dispute raised by the representative body of the employees for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal. Reference order dated 09.11.2006 impugned in the writ petitions required the Industrial Tribunal to consider the request made by the employees for absorption of their services in the respective Managements of Milk Unions where they claimed to have been employed. 3. In the writ petitions, it was urged by the Managements that as question regarding abolition of contract labour was seized by the appropriate Government pursuant to the direction issued in this regard in W.P.No.3576/2002 disposed of on 05.08.2005, reference made to the Industrial Tribunal was illegal as the Industrial Tribunal could not be clothed with such a jurisdiction which was otherwise vested with the appropriate Government. This contention has been considered and repelled by the learned Single Judge in the order under challenge. 4. Learned Single Judge has referred to the grievance made by the employees particularly in the course of conciliation proceedings in the petition filed under Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act which was produced along with W.P.No.4082/2007 at Annexure-E. Relevant portion of the grievance made in the said writ petition has been extracted in paragraph 11 of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. A perusal of the same discloses that main grievance made by the employees was that the so called employment through contractors was far from truth: the alleged contractors were non existent entities: that the same had been set up by the Managements; the said contractors were only name lenders and many of the so called contractors did not have any license and their establishments were also not registered and therefore, the very contract labour system was a sham one. After referring to these contentious issues raised by the employees in the conciliation proceedings, learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion that question whether the employment was a sham one and whether the employees were indeed employed by the Milk Unions by introducing fictitious person as contractor were questions to be decided by the Industrial Tribunal by properly adjudicating the same and therefore, question of quashing the reference made to the Industrial Tribunal would not arise. 5. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri Kasturi appearing for the appellants and Sri. V.R.Datar and Sri Narayanaswamy appearing for the respondents. 6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for appellant – Managements seriously contends that if the Industrial Tribunal proceeds with the reference, then direction issued by the learned Single in the previous round of writ petition in W.P.No.3576/2002 disposed of on 05.08.2005 directing the appropriate Government to consider the question of abolition of contract labour would be rendered wholly unnecessary and such an exercise shall not be permitted. 7. We have given our anxious consideration to this contention. As rightly held by the learned Single Judge by referring to the judgment in STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED AND OTHERS Vs. NATIONAL UNION WATERFRONT WORKERS AND OTHERS – (2001) 7 SCC 1 , even if the contract labour were to be abolished, question that remains to be addressed would be whether the employees were the employees of the contractor or they had been really engaged by the Milk Unions under a sham contract through so called independent contractors. Grievance made by the employees that they have to be absorbed in the establishment of Milk Unions is based on the premises that their employment through the alleged independent contractor was a sham one and that they have been indeed continued for a period of 15 to 20 years as employees of Milk Unions. This question has to be examined and addressed. This disputed question of fact cannot be dealt with by the appropriate Government. Decision of the appropriate Government regarding abolition or otherwise of the contract labour in any particular employment is totally different from examining the grievance of the present set of employees as to whether they were entitled for absorption in the establishment in which they were allegedly working continuously for a period of 15 to 20 years under the so called sham contracts through the name lenders/independent contractors. 8. 8. Reliance placed by learned Senior Counsel appearing for appellants on the judgment in the case of VEGOILS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. THE WORKMEN 1971 (2) SCC 724 is not apposite to the facts of the present case inasmuch as in the said case demand made was that the company shall abolish the contract system and the employees employed by the contractor shall be treated as Company’s regular employees. In the present case, the case of the employees is that the so called contract employment is a sham one and they were indeed the employees of the Milk Unions. 9. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the present appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. However, it is made clear that all the contentions urged touching upon the nature of employment of the employees is kept open to be decided in the industrial adjudication. In view of disposal of the appeal, I.As.2, 3 & 4/2016 are disposed of as having become unnecessary.