KISAN SAHKARI CHINI MILLS LTD. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri T.A. Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Ordersheet indicates that the opposite parties have been served by publication inspite of which no one has appeared nor counter affidavit has been filed.

(2.) The petitioner has assailed the validity and legality of the reference orders issued u/S 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, annexures 1 to 28 and 34 to 47 of the writ petition. The short ground taken by the petitioner is that two set of reference orders has been issued for the same workmen alleging termination of their services on the same date. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, that pursuant to the conciliation proceedings being initiated by the workman, the State Govt. issued a reference order for adjudication before the Labour Court. Subsequently, a second reference was made by the State Govt. which could not have been made and, consequently, both the reference orders were liable to be quashed. It was further urged that assuming without admitting that the reference order was valid, the same should not have been referred to the Labour Court by the State Govt. since it was a case of retrenchment and such dispute could only be referred to the Tribunal.

(3.) The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner seems to be very attractive in the first blush but, on a closer scrutiny, the court finds that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was patently misconceived and bereft of merit.