JUDGMENT R.K. Mahajan, J.
1. In all these writ petitions, there are following common prayers :
(a) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of prohibition commanding the respondent No. 2 from proceeding in pursuance to the order of reference dated 17.1.1992.
(b) To issue an ad interim stay order staying the operation of the impugned order of reference.
2. In ail the aforesaid writ petitions, common questions of law and facts are involved and they are being disposed of together by a common order with the consent of the parties.
3. It appears that Mahendra Pal is a contractor and he supplied labourers to Kishan Co-operative Sugar Factory Ltd., Sarsawa. Saharanpur.
4. The claim of the contesting respondents is that they are employees of Kishan Co-operative Sugar Factory Ltd., the petitioner. The plea of petitioner sugar factory is that they are not their employees. It was also alleged by Klshan Co-operative Sugar Factory Ltd. that it is a registered factory under the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 and it is empowered to appoint contractors to employ their own workmen on the processes specified thereunder besides the provisions of U. P. Government notification of 1972 regarding employment of contract labour in vacuum pan sugar factories of the State. It is asserted by the Management that Devi Prasad and others were not appointed at relevant dates. The matter was referred to the Deputy Labour Commissioner for conciliation who held that it is an industrial dispute after the conciliation proceedings and referred the matter to the Government. The matter has been challenged in a writ petition on various grounds and submissions which were referred at the time of arguments are that the Deputy Labour Commissioner was not competent to make a reference and it is without jurisdiction under Section 11 of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. It was also submitted on the grounds that no notice or opportunity was given at the time of conciliation.
5. I have heard counsel for the parties and I am of the considered view that Section 11A of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act is no help as the power of delegation has been given to appoint/design to officers. Section 11A reads as under:
'11A. Delegation of power.--The State Government may by making notification in the official gazette direct that any power exercisable by it under this Act or rules made thereunder shall, in relation to such matters and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in the direction be exercisable also by such officers or authority subordinate to the State Government as may be specified in the notification."
6. The State Government Js competent to delegate the power to the Deputy Labour Commissioner and since the Deputy Labour Commissioner enjoyed the powers of conciliation proceedings, he was competent to refer the matter. Nothing has been brought to my notice during arguments which shows that he was not competent to refer the matter.
7. There is another aspect of the case whether the contesting respondents were employees of the contractor of the petitioner. These facts are still to be adjudicated by a competent court under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. 1947. The petitioner and the contesting respondents are at liberty to put their version and lead the evidence for adjudication purposes. It is a settled law under Article 226 of the Constitution that the disputed questions of fact are not to be decided. These questions are to be gone by the Labour Industrial Tribunal, Labour Court, as the case may be. which has been constituted by the Legislature.
8. The question whether reference was obtained on foundational facts. i.e., where there was any industrial dispute or not is also to be adjudicated, by the Labour Court.
9. The writ petition is premature and is disposed of accordingly. It is hoped and trusted that the Labour Court would expedite the matter within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.