JUDGMENT
Swatanter Kumar, J.
1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners prayed for issuance of a direction in the nature of mandamus or any other writ petition directing the Conciliation Officer to conclude and close the proceedings of conciliation pending between the petitioners and the respondents and in the meanwhile a further direction to the said respondents not to terminate the services of the petitioners.
2. The petitioners claim that they are employees of respondent No. 2 and who run this establishment through contractor. The petitioners claim regularization under the respondent and they lodged a complaint with the concerned authorities on 14th March, 2002. Various representations thereafter failed to yield any results requiring the petitioners to file the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is also averred that on 21st April, 2002 the Inspecting Officer from the office of the appropriate Government made a surprise inspection and submitted a report before the officials stating that there was no license with the employer nor with the contractor. On this basis they have prayed for the issuance of directions before notice.
3. Learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 has contended before this Court that he ceases to be a contractor to run the canteen in the premises of respondent No. 2 since 1st April, 2002 and as such they are in no way responsible for the claim of the workers either before this Court or before the Conciliation Officer.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 contends that the petitioners were not engaged by the respondents and the said respondents are in no way responsible, directly or indirectly vis-a-vis the petitioners. Keeping in view the relief claimed in this petition, the above mentioned controversies call for no determination by this Court particularly in the writ petition. They are disputed questions of fact and need to be established by leading a cogent and proper evidence before a competent Forum. In view of the above facts, I see no reason as to why this petition should be kept pending before this Court and the same is disposed of with the direction to the Conciliation Officer of the appropriate Government to conclude the proceedings pending before him.
5. During the course of hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 8th July, 2002 the matter has already been referred to the Labour Court in terms of Sections 10(l)(c) and 10(l)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The prayer in this petition obviously stands satisfied.
6. In the circumstances above noticed, this petition has been rendered infructuous and is disposed of as such, however, with the observation that the Labour Court shall deal with the matter and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible.