- (1.) In spite of service of the appeal on the learned Counsel for Respondent No. 3, No. appearance has been filed. The Appellants, original Petitioners, are aggrieved by order dated August 6.1999 passed by the learned single Judge, whereby the learned Judge, in order to do complete justice between the parties, directed that fresh reference shall be treated by the Labour Court as an order for reconsideration under Sub-section (4) of Section 6 of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and will be decided on the evidence already on record, after hearing both the parties.
(2.) It is the submission on behalf of the Appellants that considering the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 6 of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Act'), the learned Judge could not have issued aforesaid directions.
(3.) A few facts may be set out. A reference was made on April 13, 1992. The reference pertains to the termination of services of Respondent No. 3. An award came to be passed by the Labour Court on March 2, 1995, whereby the reference was answered against the Respondent No. 3. The appropriate Government, which is the State Government in the present case, refused to publish the award, against which the Appellants herein filed a writ petition challenging the act of the State Government refusing to publish the award. The said petition was dismissed. It is to be noted that the Respondent workman did not challenge the said award.;