JUDGMENT : 1. This is a writ petition by the petitioner-Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd whereby the petitioner is seeking quashment of SRO 65 of 2002 dated 08.02.2002 issued by the Govt. of Jammu and Kashmir thereby making a reference under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, ‘Act of 1947’) to the Jammu and Kashmir Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court for adjudication of a purported industrial dispute. 2. The precursor to the issuance of SRO 65 of 2002 is that Soft Drinks and Dairy Products Workers Union Jammu, purportedly acting as a representative of some undisclosed workmen, had petitioned Conciliation Officer under the Act of 1947 questioning a retrenchment notice dated 19.12.1999 issued by the Modern Bottling Company Private Limited, Jammu in terms whereof retrenchment of 103 workers of the said Company was sought to be given effect to. 3. In the Conciliation Proceedings before the Conciliation Officer under the Act of 1947, the petitioner came to be impleaded, along with the Modern Bottling Company Private Limited Jammu, despite its objection that it had nothing to do with the Soft Drinks and Dairy Products Workers Union and the issue of retrenchment of the workmen of the Modern Bottling Company Private Limited, Jammu. 4. The pretext in which the petitioner came to be implicated in the Conciliation Proceedings before the Conciliation Officer under the Act of 1947 by the Soft Drinks and Dairy Products Workers Union, Jammu was that the petitioner had taken over the marketing in respect of the products of the Modern Bottling Company Private Limited and utilization of services of the workmen of the Modern Bottling Company Private Limited, Jammu was by the petitioner. 5. During the course of the conciliation proceedings, it is the Modern Bottling Company Private Limited, Jammu, as being respondent no. 1 in the said proceedings, which came to apprise the Conciliation Officer under the Act of 1947 about the fact that out of its 103 retrenched workmen, whose cause was purportedly being agitated by the Soft Drinks and Dairy Products Workers Union, Jammu, 45 workers have received their full and final payment in lieu of their services. 6. 1 in the said proceedings, which came to apprise the Conciliation Officer under the Act of 1947 about the fact that out of its 103 retrenched workmen, whose cause was purportedly being agitated by the Soft Drinks and Dairy Products Workers Union, Jammu, 45 workers have received their full and final payment in lieu of their services. 6. It was projected before the Conciliation Officer by the Soft Drinks and Dairy Products Workers Union, Jammu that as the marketing and sale component of the Modern Bottling Company Private Limited, Jammu has been taken over by the petitioner as such the workmen wanted job security under the employment of the petitioner and for that purpose the petitioner herein was being requested to absorb the workmen of Modern Bottling Company Private Limited, Jammu in a phased manner. 7. The Conciliation Officer under the Act of 1947 reckoned that the dispute of retrenched workmen was remaining only with respect to 58 workmen and for that purpose the petitioner was requested to take initiative with regard to employment of the said workers but since the petitioner declined the said request, as such the Conciliation Officer felt reckoned it to be an industrial dispute and, accordingly, led himself to make a reference to the Government for adjudication of the dispute on the following issues: (a) Whether the respondent no. 2 i.e., management of Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages (P) Ltd., Industrial Extension Area, Gangyal, Jammu was legally right in denying the employment to the petitioners in view of the fact that marketing and sale component has been taken over by it from the respondent no. 1- Management of Modern Bottling Company Private Limited, Jammu? (b) If not, to what relief, the petitioners are entitled to? 8. The conciliation report dated 10.11.2000 was submitted by the Conciliation Officer to the Government in reference to which it took Government more than one year to come up with the issuance of SRO 65 of 2002 dated 08.02.2002 reckoning it to be an industrial dispute refereable for adjudication under Section 10(1) of the Act of 1947 by the Labour Court in respect to the issues identified by the Government in the following manner: (a) Legality or otherwise of the action of the management of Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages (P) Ltd. Gangyal, Jammu in denying the employment to the Soft Drinks and Dairy Products Workers Union. (b) Award appropriate relief to the Soft Drinks and Dairy Products Workers Union in case of illegality of the action of the said management of Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages (P) Ltd. 9. It is in this background that the petitioner is aggrieved of the reference so made by the Government. 10. In addition to the impleadment of the then State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Labour Commissioner as being the Conciliation Officer, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Jammu as party respondents in the writ petition, the petitioner has impleaded Soft Drinks and Dairy Products Workers Union, Jammu and M/s IFCA Bottling Company Ltd. as party respondents in the writ petition. 11. In the writ petition, the petitioner has pleaded that it is a distinct corporate entity vis-à-vis Modern Bottling Company Private Limited, Jammu and M/s IFCA Bottling Company Ltd. which are also independent corporate entities under the Companies Act, 1956 and that it is M/s IFCA Bottling Company Ltd. which was manufacturing products to different companies and the same were being distributed by the Modern Bottling Company Private Limited as an associate concern of M/s IFCA Bottling Company Ltd. 12. It is only when one of the brands, which was being manufactured by M/s IFCA Bottling Company Ltd, was acquired by one of the subsidiaries of the Coca-Cola Company, USA that the marketing of the brand of Cadbury Schweppes came to be granted to the petitioner. This was a business deal which came into scene and in that the petitioner had nothing to do with the employment status of the workmen of Modern Bottling Company Private Limited and for that matter M/s IFCA Bottling Company Ltd. 13. It is pleaded in the writ petition that in case the Modern Bottling Company Private Limited had ventured to off-load its workmen on account of loss of one of its business ventures, it does not mean that the burden of that off-load of workmen was to be shifted into the shoulders of the petitioner at the asking of the Soft Drinks and Dairy Products Workers Union. 14. 14. The sum and substance of the petitioner’s grievance is that it is a foreigner to any dispute obtaining between the Modern Bottling Company Private Limited and its aggrieved workers whomsoever that may be and in that the petitioner had no role to play and it cannot be ascribed any responsibility or liability by any stretch of legal reference and inference and as such the reference made by the Conciliation Officer to the Govt. of Jammu and Kashmir and consequent issuance of SRO 65 of 2002 dated 08.02.2002 by the Govt. of Jammu and Kashmir is misconceived and without any legal basis. 15. After perusing the entire material on record and in particular, the failure report made under Section 12(4) of the Act of 1947 by the Conciliation Officer under the Act of 1947 which led the basis for the Government to issue the impugned SRO 65 of 2002, this Court finds no factual basis upon which the Conciliation Officer legally related the petitioner with the dispute, if any, obtaining between the workmen on the one hand and the management of Modern Bottling Company Private Limited on the other hand. 16. In case, the Conciliation Officer was satisfied that the workmen of Modern Bottling Company Private Limited, Jammu were facing imminent prospect of retrenchment on account of any reorientation of the business of the Modern Bottling Company Private Limited, then the Conciliation Officer ought to have made a failure report only specific to the workmen, being purportedly represented by Soft Drinks and Dairy Products Workers Union, and the management of the Modern Bottling Company Private Limited but instead the Conciliation Officer made the alleged dispute to over-reach to involve the petitioner as if there was an agreement in writing before the Conciliation Officer which was evidencing the fact that the petitioner had taken on board in its employment the work force of the Modern Bottling Company Private Limited. 17. Thus, the implication of the petitioner in the conciliation proceedings was misconceived and unwarranted which ought to have been checked in time by the Conciliation Officer himself so as to keep the dispute concised as obtaining between the workmen and Modern Bottling Company Private Limited. 17. Thus, the implication of the petitioner in the conciliation proceedings was misconceived and unwarranted which ought to have been checked in time by the Conciliation Officer himself so as to keep the dispute concised as obtaining between the workmen and Modern Bottling Company Private Limited. The failure report, thus, made by the Conciliation Officer was perverse and Government, by acting upon perversity without any independent application of mind on its own part, issued SRO 65 of 2002 making a reference to the Labour Court for adjudication of a dispute which, at no point of time, was ever obtaining in the manner and sense whatsoever in the eyes of law between the petitioner and the so-called Soft Drinks and Dairy Products Workers Union allegedly representing the workers of the Modern Bottling Company Private Limited. 18. In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and the impugned SRO no. 65 of 2002 dated 08.02.2002 is quashed in its entirety being misconceived in the eyes of law. 19. Disposed of accordingly along with connected application(s).