Farooq Hasan, J.
1. The petitioner has challenged the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Kota, passed in a Reference Case No. 177/1979.
2. The dispute was as to whether the removal from service of workmen - Rajendra Kumar, Hari Singh, Madan Lal and Ram Lal, by M/s. Multi Metals Ltd. (respondent No. 2) was justified and legal, and if not, what relief the workmen were entitled to. The main objection raised by the respondent No.2 was that the workmen were employed through contractors and as per the provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970, the State Government could not have made a reference under the Industrial Disputes Act.
3. The learned Industrial Tribunal framed the following points of 'dispute:-
4. The point No. 1 framed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, was decided in favour of the workmen.
5. There is no dispute that the aforesaid four persons (Rajendra Kumar, Hari Singh, Madan Lal and Ramlal) were employed by Rajasthan Traders Contractors. Rajasthan Traders Contractors had a contract with the company (respondent No. 2) for making wooden boxes for which the contractor was paid at the rate of per box. Contractor, for getting his work done, employed different persons at different times. He employed the aforesaid four persons and paid their wages. Register of attendance and payment of wages of the aforesaid four employees was admittedly maintained by the contractor. The final payment at the time of termination was also made by him, as claimed by the aforesaid four persons. They were receiving wages from the contractor at the rate of Rs. 300 per month. The contractor received payment for his contract at the rate fixed for per box. The company (respondent No.2) had no concern as to who is employed by the contractor and what wages are being paid to them. There is no privacy (privity) of contract between the company and the workers of the contractor. The Tribunal has found no evidence that the aforesaid four persons were employed and terminated on the basis of amendment of 1958 in Section 2(g) of the Industrial Disputes Act by which Clause (iii) was inserted. The Tribunal further held that the company (respondent No.2) would be deemed to be employer by virtue of this amendment. Clause (iii) reads as under: -
'where the owner of any industry in the course of or for the purpose of conducting the industry contracts with any person for the execution by or under the contractor of the whole or any part of any work which is ordinarily a part of the industry, the owner thereof.'
Similar amendment was made in the definition of workmen.
6. The Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970, was enacted by Parliament. The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was also enacted by Parliament. The State legislature made amendment of 1958 in Section 2(g) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The contractor's employees were not covered by the definition of employer and workmen of the Industrial Disputes Act. Later on, by enacting a self-contained code for contract labour by the Act, 1970, the contractor was kept the employer of his workmen. Thus, after 1970 there was a conflict in the Act of 1970 of Parliament and Rajasthan amendment of 1958 in Industrial Disputes Act. Since the Act of 1970 was special law and it prevails over the general Industrial Disputes Act, the Act of 1970 being enacted by Parliament subsequently, will prevail over earlier Act of State legislature. This aspect of the case was not appreciated by the Court below. This Court in its two judgments on the same point held that Clause (iii) of Section 2(g) added by Rajasthan amendment of 1958 became non-existent and inoperative, and stood impliedly repealed by the provision of Act of 1970. Therefore, the reference made by the State Government under the Industrial Disputes Act itself was quashed being without jurisdiction. Similar view has been expressed in the following reported cases : 1975 Lab I.C. 165 (A.P.) (D.B.); A.I.R. 1972 SC 1942; 1991 (1) L.L.N. 1218 (Delhi) (D.B.); 1988 (2) RLR 254 and 1989 (1)RKR 733.
7. The Tribunal in its finding held that the aforesaid four persons were employees of the contractor and, as such, they became the employees of the company by virtue of Section 2(g)(iii) added by Rajasthan amendment of 1958, and after the Act of 1970, there was no jurisdiction under Industrial Disputes Act for matters relating to contract labour. The case was decided by the Tribunal against the petitioner.
8. Detailed arguments have been heard and the impugned awards of the Tribunal have been perused.
9. The award on point No. 1 and 3 is correct. The award on point No.2 is not correct in view of the aforesaid observations. The result remains the same but the case deserves to be dismissed on all the three points. Since the contractor was the employer so the reference could have been made as against him but not against the company. The poor persons could seek their remedy against the Rajasthan Traders Contractors who employed and terminated their services. Similar view has been taken by this Court in the Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1007/1980) decided on November 26, 1990 and in The Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors., (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1218/1981), M/s. Shriram Chemicals v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors., (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1310/1981) and in M/s. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors., (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1250/1980) decided by a common order dated October 22, 1991. In these cases, the controversy was whether the discharged employees who are represented by Thekedar Mazdoor Union, Chhawani, Kota, were the employees of M/s. Shriram Chemicals Industry, Kota, or not? If yes, whether the discharge of the employees by the Manager, Shriram Chemicals Industries, Kota, is valid and legal and if not, what relief the workers are entitled. In the operative part, the Court observed that the disputes which have been referred to the Industrial Tribunal by the State Government are such disputes which are covered under the provisions of the Act of 1970 and can be dealt with only under the provisions of the Act of 1970 which is a special Act and reference under the Industrial Disputes Act is not maintainable and is without jurisdiction. In other two cases No.1250/1980 and 1218/1981, the Court quashed and set aside the reference and it was directed that the workmen, however, will be at liberty to raise the dispute before the proper forum, if so desired.
10. It has been vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workmen who have been discharged were the employees of M/s. Multi Metals Limited, so the reference made to the Tribunal was proper. As said earlier, there is no evidence on record to show that the discharged employees/workmen were the employees of M/s. Multi Metals Limited, but from the evidence and pleadings of the parties it is abundantly clear that the discharged employees/workmen were employed by the contractor who was attached with M/s. Multi Metals Limited Company for making the wooden boxes for the purpose of packing of the goods manufactured by it.
11. In the light of aforesaid discussion, I find no force in this writ petition. Therefore, the same is dismissed and it is held that the learned Tribunal was justified in holding that the reference made to the Tribunal was improper and that the Tribunal in such circumstances was not obliged to decide the reference. There will be no order as to costs.