ORDER : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the first respondent. 3. Petitioners are before this court calling in question the award passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chikkamagaluru in I.D.R. No.8/2017 whereby, the labour court was pleased to reject the reference made by the State Govt. under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 vide proceedings dated 09.02.2017. 4. The case of the petitioners is that they were working in the office of the first respondent as data entry operators. That they have been placed in the office of the first respondent through the second respondent agency. That their services have been utilized in various establishments like Comat Technology Private Limited, Bengaluru and thereafter with the second respondent between 2012 & 2013. That the public unhappy with the name and fame earned by the petitioners started troubling them in one way or the other and that the first respondent alleging that they were not responding to the public, addressed a communication requesting the second respondent to replace their services in his office. That pursuant to the communication received from the first respondent, the second respondent without holding any Domestic Enquiry removed them from their services. Aggrieved, they moved the Govt. by raising a dispute and the same came to be referred to the labour court in terms of Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The labour court after examining the material on record and the evidence let in by the parties has observed in paragraph 14 as under: “14. Ex.M1 is the letter given by the 2nd party No.1 to the 2nd party No.2 stating that, there are some allegations against the 1st parties and that was published in ‘Bimba’ paper and requested to provide other workers to work as a DATA Entry Operator. The documents available on record clearly shows that, as per the Tender, the 2nd party No.2 has provided the 1st parties to the 2nd party No.1 to work as a DATA Entry Operator. Accordingly, the 1st parties were working under 2nd party No.1. As per the recommendation letter the 2nd party No.2 has dismissed the 1st parties from service temporarily. The recitals in Ex.W5 and W6 shows that, the 1st parties were appointed on a contract base. Accordingly, the 1st parties were working under 2nd party No.1. As per the recommendation letter the 2nd party No.2 has dismissed the 1st parties from service temporarily. The recitals in Ex.W5 and W6 shows that, the 1st parties were appointed on a contract base. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that, there were no necessity to hold any enquiry before removing the 1st parties from the service. No doubt, the 2nd party No.1 has not appeared and proved the allegations against the 1st parties. But, the recitals in the letter issued by the Tahasildar shows that, the 1st parties were not responding to the public and they were not submitting the progress report to the higher officer and they were collecting more money from the public than the prescribed fee while issuing R.T.C. and M.R. He has requested the 2nd party No.2 to provide alternative workers to work as a DATA Entry Operator. It appears that the Tahasildar by collecting some information has issued a letter. There was no any enmity between the 1st parties and the 2nd party No.1. Under such circumstances, there was no necessity for the 2nd party No.1 to issue a recommendation letter to the 2nd party No.2 to provide alternative workers to work as a DATA Entry Operator. On the basis of that letter, the 2nd party No.2 has given a letter to the 1st parties removing them from the service temporarily. Hence, I am of the opinion that, the said dismissal order is not illegal. The 1st parties were worked in the office of the 2nd party No.1. But admittedly, the 2nd party No.1 has not got appointed directly of the parties. Even the wages have not been paid directly to the 1st parties from the office of the 2nd party No.1. The 2nd party No.2 is an agent of the 2nd party No.1 and through the said agency the parties were worked in the office of the party No.1. The 1st parties are not worked under the 2nd party No.2. Taking into consideration these aspects, I answer this Issue in Affirmative.” 5. On perusal of the material and even as per the pleadings of the petitioners, the petitioners are employees of the second respondent private agency and were engaged by the outsourcing agency on the basis of the contract awarded to the second respondent. Taking into consideration these aspects, I answer this Issue in Affirmative.” 5. On perusal of the material and even as per the pleadings of the petitioners, the petitioners are employees of the second respondent private agency and were engaged by the outsourcing agency on the basis of the contract awarded to the second respondent. The material on record does not demonstrate that the petitioners have been appointed in any manner whatsoever by the first respondent. In that view of the matter, this court does not find any merit which requires further consideration of the petition by the court. Accordingly, petition being devoid of merits, stands dismissed. Dismissal of the petition shall not in any manner disentitled the petitioners to ventilate their grievance, if any, as against the second respondent.