Industrial dispute reference cannot be refused by prejudging employment status; alternative reliefs under different labour statutes are permissible.

Alternative reliefs under the Industrial Disputes Act and the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act were held to rest on different statutory remedies, so an earlier effort to abolish contract labour did not estop a later request for reference on whether the contract was sham and the workers were direct employees. The dismissal of the earlier writ for non-prosecution did not create estoppel or res judicata. The appropriate Government's power under Section 10(1) is administrative and cannot be used to decide the merits of the industrial dispute; refusal based on a prejudgment that the workers were not employees was therefore unsustainable and had to be reconsidered without addressing the dispute's merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant was estopped from seeking a reference under the Industrial Disputes Act after earlier having sought abolition of contract labour under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act; (ii) whether the Central Government's refusal to make a reference was liable to be interfered with.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant was estopped from seeking a reference under the Industrial Disputes Act after earlier having sought abolition of contract labour under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act.

Analysis: The two proceedings were founded on different statutory remedies and different reliefs. The earlier proceeding sought abolition of contract labour and consequential absorption, while the later proceeding sought a reference on the issue whether the contract itself was sham and whether the workers were direct employees. The pleadings were not inconsistent in substance, and alternative reliefs on the same factual foundation were legally permissible. The dismissal of the earlier writ petition for non-prosecution did not create a bar of estoppel or res judicata against the later proceeding.

Conclusion: The appellant was not estopped from pursuing the later relief, and the plea of inconsistent stands was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the Central Government's refusal to make a reference was liable to be interfered with.

Analysis: The power to make a reference under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act is administrative, but the Government cannot decide the merits of the industrial dispute or usurp the Tribunal's function. Judicial interference is warranted where refusal rests on irrelevant grounds, extraneous considerations, mala fides, or a prejudgment of the dispute. Here, the refusal was founded on the very merits of the dispute, namely that the workers were not employees of IOC, even though that was the precise question requiring adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal.

Conclusion: The refusal to make a reference was unsustainable and required reconsideration by the Central Government.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, and the Central Government was directed to reconsider the request for reference without deciding the merits of the industrial dispute.

Ratio Decidendi: The appropriate Government, while exercising power under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, cannot adjudicate the merits of the dispute or refuse reference on grounds that amount to prejudgment of the very issue meant for industrial adjudication.

---