ANIL KUMAR NIGAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. Though no counter affidavit has been filed inspite of opportunity granted but the question involved herein as argued by learned Counsel for the parties being a question of law, learned Counsel for both the parties agreed for final disposal of the writ petition.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner referred to impugned order at Annexure-9 to the writ petition dated 13.3.1991 and contended that reference sought for by the petitioner has been refused upon deciding the dispute on merit and it is contended that thereby the authority concerned acted beyond jurisdiction. A reference was made to the decisions in this connection decided by the Apex Court in the case of M.P. Irrigation Karmchari Sangh v. State of M.P., reported in AIR 1985 SC 860, Ram Autar Sharma v. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 1985 SC 915 and Workmen of Syndicate Bank, Madras v. Government of India, reported in AIR 1985 SC 1667.

(3.) After considering the contention of the respective parties it appears that admittedly in the present case reference has been denied by deciding the question on merit which results in acting beyond jurisdiction of the concerned authority. Nothing has been shown on behalf of the respondents in support of the impugned order and in view of the facts of the present case I find that the impugned order was passed upon adjudication the dispute itself.