ORDER Mr. S. Ranganathan, J.
1. Special leave granted.
2. These are appeals from orders passed by the Gujarat High Court in two writ petitions filed by the appellants. According to the appellants, they were "workmen" under the Abad Dairy, Ahmedabad and, as certain disputes had arisen between them and their employers, the disputes had to be referred to an Industrial Tribunal for adjudication under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Government, however, declined to make a reference on the ground that the members of the appellant Association were not workmen. The appellants thereupon filed a writ petition in the Gujarat High Court (Petition No. 4587 of 1987) seeking, inter alia, a direction to the Government to refer the disputes between the members of the Association and employers for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal. In the meantime, it appears the respondents had taken action to terminate their agreement with some of the members of the Association. Thereupon the appellants filed another writ petition (Petition No. 2492 of 1988) seeking certain reliefs which need not be set out here.
3. The High Court examined the matter and came to the conclusion that the members of the appellant Association were not "workmen" within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act. So it dismissed the writ petitions, leaving the appellants to take recourse to ordinary civil Courts to ventilate their grievances, if so advised.
4. We have heard counsel for the appellants as well as counsel for the respondents. We are of the opinion that having regard to the facts of the cases as well as the voluminous evidence sought to be adduced by both sides, the question as to whether the members of the Association are workmen or , not requires detailed investigation of facts. It is true that there appeared to be certain agreements entered into between the respondents and the appellants but it is the case of the appellants that, agreement apart, there is plenty of evidence in the form of instructions and circulars issued by the respondents which would show that the members of the Association were really workmen and not commission agents as alleged.. In fact, in , pursuance of the permission given by this Court ' to file affidavits the parties have filed affidavits running to several pages setting out facts in support of their respective contentions. We have also heard both counsel for some time and are satisfied that the issue requires detailed examination of facts and can be satisfactorily adjudicated upon only by a Tribunal.
5. We are of the opinion that neither a writ proceeding in the High Court nor an appeal under Article 136 is the proper forum in which these factual contentions and allegations should be gone into. The High Court itself has observed at various places in its judgment that the nature of the dispute between the parties and the facts and circumstances were such that a writ petition was not the appropriate forum to enter into such facts but seems to have allowed itself to be persuaded to go into the question perhaps because the counsel on both sides were not averse to that course. We however think that the High Court should not have done this but, instead, should have directed the Government or refer the disputes between the parties to an Industrial Tribunal, making the issue of the jurisdictional fact viz. as to "whether the appellants are workmen?" also one of the terms of reference. We say this because, though there are agreements between the parties, not only is the interpretation of the agreements a matter of dispute, it will also be necessary to consider whether the agreement reflects the real position or whether the conduct of the parties and other materials placed on record show that the appellants were employees as suggested by the appellants and not commission agents as suggested on behalf of the respondents. Also, the only ground on which the State Government declined to make a reference was that the appellants were not workmen. This view is not so obvious or patent on the facts before us. In the circumstances, we think the best course is to set aside the order of the High Court and direct that the matter be gone into by an Industrial Tribunal after the Government has made an appropriate order. We, therefore, allow these appeals, set aside the order of the High Court and direct the State Government to refer to an Industrial Tribunal all the disputes between the parties including the preliminary question whether the appellants are workmen within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act or not.
6. The State Government is directed to make the above reference within a period of two months from today. In the meantime, in the interest of justice, status quo should be maintained by both parties, as already directed by this Court on December 13, 1988. This shall continue for a period often weeks from today. This will not, however, preclude the respondents from taking such action against individual members of the appellants for misconduct, breach of the agreement or the like as may be open to them in law, in case any occasion should arise there for. We wish to make it clear that in view of our above conclusion, we express no opinion on the findings contained in the judgment of the High ; Court on the evidence before it as to whether the appellants are workmen or not and leave the matter to be decided afresh by the Tribunal on the evidence led before it unfettered by the findings of the High Court in this behalf.
7. In the view we have taken, the appeal against the order in Petition No. 4587 of 1987 is allowed as indicated above. So far as the second appeal against Petition No. 2492 of 1988 is concerned, the counsel for the appellants seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to take such other steps or proceedings in regard to the reliefs sought therein as may be open to them in law. We grant this prayer, Petition No. 2492 of 1988 will consequently stand dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.