Anjani Kumar, J. - (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) The petitioner-employer by means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has challenged the order dated 6th March, 1999 passed by the respondent No. 1 (Annexure '3' to the writ petition) whereby the matter which was referred to and was pending before the Labour Court, Ghaziabad has been transferred to Industrial Tribunal-V, Meerut.
(3.) Sri Satish Chaturvedi, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued that in view of the provisions of Section 6-G read with Section 4-k (Proviso) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, order impugned in the present writ petition was passed on the representation filed by the respondents-Union of the workmen when the matter was pending before the Labour Court. Sri Chaturvedi relied upon the opening sentence of Section 6-G (1) of the Act, which provides that State Government may by order in writing for reasons to be recorded withdraw and transfer a proceeding........". The contention of Sri Chaturvedi is that perusal of the order demonstrates that no reasons have been recorded for transfer. Perusal of the impugned order negates the aforesaid argument of Sri Chaturvedi. Reasons have been given in the order, which says that since an application has been filed by the Union of the Workmen and on the aforesaid application after consideration, the State Government was of the opinion that the mattar may be transferred. There is sufficient compliance of Section 6-G(l) of the Act.;