JUDGMENT : 1. The WP No.26265 of 2012 is filed by the O.N.G.C., Krishna Godavari Contract Workers Union challenging the oral instructions of the 4th respondent therein directing the members of the 1st petitioner not to attend to their duties from 31.08.2012. A further direction is sought to continue the members of the 1st petitioner in their respective posts held by them pursuant to the service agreement with the 5th respondent therein. The WP No.29675 of 2012 is filed by the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation challenging the order dated 24.04.2012 passed by the 1st respondent therein and the ID.No.26 of 2012, which was registered in pursuance of the reference. 2. As the dispute arose on account of the reference of the Ministry of Labour dated 24.04.2012, the above two writ petitions are filed. The writ petition challenging the impugned reference shall be decided as the main writ petition. The grievance of the petitioners in WP No.29675 of 2012 would be adequately covered the issue of both the writ petitions. 3. The 1st respondent in WP No.29675 of 2012 vide its order dated 24.04.2012 passed an order of reference to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Hyderabad. An industrial dispute which was existing between the employers in relation to the management of O.N.G.C., was referred by the 1st respondent by passing the following order of reference "Whether the demand of the Union for regularization of service of 178 workmen (list enclosed) who are working on tenure based employment by the management of ONGC, Rajamundry is legal and justified? What relief the workmen are entitled to?" 4. The learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has regular employees on rolls who are recruited after following the recruitment process in accordance with service rules for all its core activities. It is submitted that the non-core activity is outsourced by awarding contracts to the contractors. It is also submitted that for providing security services the petitioner has awarded a contract. The said contractor would be the principal employer for the workmen engaged by the said contractor. 5. It is further submitted that in the year 1988 the Central Government has deployed men from Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) for providing security for the Central Government establishments including the petitioner. The said contractor would be the principal employer for the workmen engaged by the said contractor. 5. It is further submitted that in the year 1988 the Central Government has deployed men from Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) for providing security for the Central Government establishments including the petitioner. It is also submitted that the ministry of defence vide OM No.4(20)US(RES)/93, dated 04.02.1994 directed all ministries to issue appropriate instructions to all the public sector undertakings to entrust their security jobs to ex-servicemen security agencies sponsored by the Director General of Resettlement, New Delhi. It was also made clear that engaging private security agencies on contract basis is to be avoided. 6. The petitioner followed the instructions and engaged an Ex-servicemen society sponsored by the Director General of Resettlement for providing security services. In the year 1998, the State Government deployed men from A.P. State Special Protection Force to some of the installations of the petitioner for providing security. In the year 2003 the contract with the Ex-servicemen society was terminated. In December, 2011 State Government allotted 122 Home Guards who replaced 128 security personnel deployed by the contractor M/s. Asian Security Force. 7. 54 members who were working under the contractor M/s. Gurubani Security Private Limited filed WP Nos.16515 of 2008 and 17403 of 2008 seeking a direction to notify vacancies of security guards for recruitment. The writ petitions were disposed off on 15.05.2008 directing the petitioners to workout their remedies under the Contract Labour Regulation Act. The workers approached the Chairman, Central Advisory Contract Labour Court for absorbing them and regularizing their services with the petitioner or on term basis. 8. As the things stood thus the 1st respondent passed an order dated 22.06.2012 and a notification was also issued prohibiting the employment of contract labour in the jobs of security guard and security supervisor in the establishments of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation. The petitioner filed WP No.24817 of 2012 and this Court suspended the operation of said notification. 9. On 06.09.2010 the Workers Union submitted their demands before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad. The demands were rejected and the petitioner also submitted to the Regional Labour Commissioner of Labour for workmen about the illogical demands of the workers. On failure of the conciliated proceedings the Regional Labour Commissioner submitted the report to the 1st respondent. 9. On 06.09.2010 the Workers Union submitted their demands before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad. The demands were rejected and the petitioner also submitted to the Regional Labour Commissioner of Labour for workmen about the illogical demands of the workers. On failure of the conciliated proceedings the Regional Labour Commissioner submitted the report to the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent issued the impugned proceedings to which the petitioner submitted their objection. The dispute was referred to the Tribunal. 10. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the demand of the Contract Labour, the proposed reference of the Contract Labour and the impugned reference is tabulated as under : Demand for the Contract Labour Proposed Reference Reference made in the Impugned Order To direct the ONGC to absorb the services of the workmen on par with the permanent employees of the same cadre. Whether the demand of the workers of the Union for regularization on tenure based employment by ONGC, Rajahmundry Asset is justified? If so, what relief these workers are entitled to? Whether the demand of the Union for regularization of Services of 178 workmen (list enclosed) who are working on tenure based employment by the management of ONGC, Rajahmundry is legal and justified? What relief the workmen are entitled to? 11. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the 1st respondent has committed a fundamental error in the reference which would require a correction as the Industrial Tribunal would have to adjudicate the dispute within the parameters of the reference. It is submitted that the Labour Court cannot travel beyond the reference and that when the reference itself as a fundamental error, the adjudication of the dispute by the Labour Court would be a futile exercise. 12. Sri C. Sumon, learned Counsel appearing for the workers union submits that the members of the union have been rendering the security services without any scope for complaint. It is also submitted that 42 workers have already attained the age of superannuation and a few more are likely to attain the age of superannuation on account of pendency of the writ petitions before this Court. It is submitted that further proceedings in ID.No.26 of 2012 is stayed by the interim orders passed in WP No.29675 of 2012. It is also submitted that the workmen have been discharging the duties consistently and continuously. It is submitted that further proceedings in ID.No.26 of 2012 is stayed by the interim orders passed in WP No.29675 of 2012. It is also submitted that the workmen have been discharging the duties consistently and continuously. It is also submitted that the petitioners in WP No.29675 of 2012 do not dispute that the work of the security personnel is pernicious in nature and definitely continuously and security services to be rendered round the clock. 13. The learned Counsel for the petitioner places reliance on TATA Iron and Steel Company Limited v. State of Jharkand and others, (2014) 1 SCC 536 . The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that Industrial Tribunal has to confine within the scope of the subject-matter of reference and cannot travel beyond the same. The learned Counsel also places reliance on Bharat Electronics Limited and another v. Union of India and others, 2015 SCC OnLine P&H 20309. The Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has set aside the reference as the same was not tenable and contrary to the standing orders. 14. The learned Counsel appearing for the workers union places reliance on the judgment of this Court in WP No.24835 of 2004, whereby a reference to the Labour Court was under challenge. This Court dismissed the writ petition by observing that the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court shall conduct due enquiry with regard to the reference made to it by the 1st respondent therein by according opportunity of adducing evidence and advancing arguments to both parties and pass an award in accordance with governing law and rules expeditiously but not later than four months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. The learned Counsel also places reliance on General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Commission, Silchar v. Oil and Natural Gas Commission Contractual Workers Union, (2008) 12 SCC 275 . The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it was open to the Industrial Tribunal to have lifted the veil so as to determine the nature of the employment and the dispute between the parties and for that purpose to look into the pleadings and the evidence produced before it. The learned Counsel also places reliance on Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited v. Petroleum Coal Labour Union and others, (2015) 6 SCC 494 . The learned Counsel also places reliance on Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited v. Petroleum Coal Labour Union and others, (2015) 6 SCC 494 . The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Tribunal has got power to adjudicate an industrial dispute and impose upon the employer new obligations to strike a balance and secure industry is harmony between employer and the workmen and ultimately deliver social justice which is constitutional mandate. 15. Considering the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and after perusing the record, this Court arrives at the following consideration. 16. The reference which is under challenge in WP No.29675 of 2012 does not definitely reflect the true nature of dispute. The members of the employees union have been consistently claiming that they are discharging the duties of security personnel under a contract and through a contractor. It is also not in dispute that the ONGC Corporation did not employee any of the security personnel for a fixed term directly on its rolls either on casual, temporary or daily basis. The service of the workmen is undisputedly through a contractor. 17. It is pertinent to note that the writ petitioner in WP No.26265 of 2012 at Para 8 of the affidavit has fairly conceded that the reference passed by the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India vide order dated 24.04.2012 is wrongly worded and that necessary steps are taken up for rectification of the said reference. 18. The impugned reference would only set out a broader aspect of dispute between the workmen and the corporation. It may not be a holistic reference to the dispute in all directions. The Industrial Tribunal is a quasi-judicial authority which can conduct a comprehensive enquiry and arrive at a finding on facts. The submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the ONGC Corporation that the Tribunal cannot travel beyond the scope of its reference would not include adjudicating a dispute which is not under reference. When the reference is made for adjudicating the grievance of the workmen. The Tribunal has to consider the material evidence submitted by the management and the workmen for substantiating their stands and give a finding on fact after considering such material. In the considered opinion of this Court the contention of the learned Counsel for ONGC Corporation is misplaced. Insofar as seeking to set aside the reference. The Tribunal has to consider the material evidence submitted by the management and the workmen for substantiating their stands and give a finding on fact after considering such material. In the considered opinion of this Court the contention of the learned Counsel for ONGC Corporation is misplaced. Insofar as seeking to set aside the reference. The Labour Court has ample powers to adjudicate and determine the dispute. Though the reference indicates that the workmen are employed on term basis, the nature of employment, the terms and conditions of service shall be determined by the Labour Court after considering the material evidence submitted by the corporation and the workers union. 19. The Labour Court definitely has powers to determine the core dispute and in the said process would definitely consider the nature of engagement, terms of engagement before arriving at a conclusion and passing an award on merits. 20. The dispute is pending since the last 12 years and the ID No.26 of 2012 could not be proceeded further on account of the stay granted by this Court. Setting aside the reference on the technicality and restarting the issue once again would only lead to further delay which is not desired by the parties to the litigation. In these circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned reference in WP No.29675 of 2012 need not be set aside. At the same time it is made clear that the Industrial Tribunal shall forthwith proceed adjudication of ID No.26 of 2012 by according equal opportunity of adducing the evidence and a fair opportunity of hearing for the parties to the dispute and decide the core dispute on merits in accordance with law. It is made clear that the Industrial Tribunal shall dispose of ID No.26 of 2012 as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. 21. As the WP No.29675 of 2012 is dismissed with a direction to the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate the core dispute in a time bound manner, the WP No.26265 of 2012 is closed in terms of the interim orders granted by this Court on 28.08.2012. There shall be no order as to costs. 22. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stands closed.