V.K. Shukla, J. - (1.) Petitioner has approached this court for issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order passed by the State Government on 21.6.1990, refusing to refer the dispute to Labour Court. Further prayer has been made for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the State Government to refer the dispute to Labour court for adjudication of the industrial dispute.
(2.) Brief background of the case, as mentioned in the writ petition, is that petitioner was appointed as Refrigeration Mechanic with respondent No. 3 by means of letter dated 2.11.1982 and 7.1.1983 respectively. As the work and conduct of petitioner was excellent and upto mark, after judging performance and assessment of the work put in by him, petitioner was confirmed as Technical Grade by means of letter dated 20.2.1984 with effect from 1.12.1983. Later on, he was placed in the Grade of Rs. 550 per month with effect from 1.4.1984 by letter dated 4.7.1984. Again petitioner was granted special increment of Rs. 50/- per month. On 2.11.1987, petitioner was informed that his services would be terminated with effect from 9.12.1987 on account of close of work as Vacuum Pump Division of the company was going to be permanently closed. It was mentioned therein that petitioner would be entitled to retrenchment compensation. Petitioner, thereafter, moved an application under section 2-A of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before Conciliation Officer, Ghaziabad. In the aforementioned conciliation proceedings, respondent No. 3 entered appearance and contended that petitioner had been offerer compensation as admissible under law. To the written statement rejoinder statement was filed, and therein the factum of payment of compensation was disputed. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 communicated the order dated 21.6.1990, by means of which it has been informed that the State Government did not find the dispute fit for reference, as the establishment in question had been closed, and petitioner had been offered payment which was admissible to him, and the case had been consigned to record. Thereafter, petitioner mace representation to the Assistant Labour Commissioner to refer the dispute on the ground that the establishment in question was still functioning, and he had not been offered any payment. No action was taken on the aforementioned representation, then the petitioner again represented the matter on 17.5.1993. The said representation was followed by another representation dated 28.6.1993. As nothing was done on the aforementioned representations, present writ petition was filed claiming he reliefs as indicated above.
(3.) To this writ petition, counter affidavit has been filed, and therein specific averment has been made that respondent company has closed down Vacuum Pump Division, and consequently, services of the petitioner, along with others were terminated. It has also been contended that by means of letter dated 2.11.1987 addressed to the petitioner, categorical information had been furnished that Vacuum Pump Division was lowed permanently with effect from 9.12.1987, as such the services of the petitioner were no longer required. It has also been mentioned that services of the petitioner had been disengaged consequent to permanent closure of Vacuum Pump Division, and propriety of closure could not form subject matter of industrial dispute. It has been further asserted that making of reference is an administrative act of the Government, as such no mandamus can be issued by this Court.;