(1.) Heard the learned advocate Mr. Dipak R. Dave appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned advocate Mrs. Sangita Pahwa appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 and learned A.G.P. Mr. Dabhi appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.
(2.) In the petition, looking to the prayer made in Para 6(A), order of reference dated 27th February 2003 and order passed by the Labour Court on 20th July 2005 and 11th August 2004 in Reference Demand No.19 of 2003 are under challenged. This Court initially issued noticed to the respondents then this Court has also allowed to amend the prayer and also allowed to join Deputy Labour Commissioner as a party respondent No.2 who is referred the matter for adjudication to the concerned Labour Court. This Court has directed to learned A.G.P. Mr. Dabhi to call the conciliation officer for records of membership of concern Union at the time of making reference to the concerned Labour Court, Ahmedabad by order dated 27th June 2006.
(3.) Learned advocate Mr. Dipak Dave submitted that industrial disputes raised by respondent No.1 " Union not having the sufficient membership to espouse the cause of individual workmen. He also submitted that before conciliation officer, such contention was raised by the petitioner that Union is not having sufficient number of membership for raising individual dispute against the petitioner. He also submitted that before the Labour Court, after receiving the statement of claim from the Union vide Exh.16 written statement was filed by the petitioner and raising certain contention that reference is not competent, invalid and bad in law. Such preliminary contention was raised by the petitioner, against which, respondent No.1 has filed reply vide Exh.33 and ultimately, Labour Court has examined the preliminary contention raised by the petitioner by order dated 20th July 2005. The second application filed by respondent No.1 " Union with a prayer to restrain the petitioner from vacating the quarter. The application vide Exh.31 filed by the petitioner challenging the validity and legality of reference has been rejected. Therefore, consequences to that, petitioner has challenged the order of reference dated 27th February 2003 directly before this Court. In respect to the application filed by Union with a prayer to restrain the petitioner from vacating the quarters till the industrial dispute is decided. The Labour Court has decided it on 11th August 2004 allowing the application Exh.5 and directed to petitioner restraining from vacating the quarter of the workman concerned till dispute is decided finally between the parties. In terms of reference, appropriate Government has referred the dispute in respect to one Smt. P.E. Sarojini Amma, against whom, transfer order dated 8th March 2001 was passed by the petitioner as referred in terms of reference as to whether such transfer order is required to be set aside or not. In light of this back ground, in all three orders are under challenged before this Court.