- (1.) This appeal is directed against the order of a learned Single Judge whereby the impugned order of withdrawal passed by the State Government under Section 6-G of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act was quashed and it was directed that the Labour Court would continue the proceedings as if there was no order of withdrawal.
(2.) The facts material for the purposes of this appeal are these. An industrial dispute between the workmen and the employers M/s. Prag Vanaspati Product, Aligarh, arose out of the dismissal of the petitioners respondents Nos. 1 to 4 as well as two other workmen with effect from 11th June 1968. On 28th March, 1968, a notice for strike was given and the workmen went on strike with effect from 13th April, 1968. Thereafter negotiations were held between the workmen and the employers from time to time and ultimately a settlement was purported to have been made on 4-7-1968, before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, U. P., the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Agra Region and the Assistant Regional Conciliation Officer, Aligarh, the terms whereof were reduced into writing and the representatives of the employers and the workmen put their signaturbs on the document in the presence of Regional. Assistant Labour Commissioner and the Additional Regional Conciliation Officer, as a result whereof the strike was called off forthwith. It was stipulated in the document that the parties had agreed that the dispute arising out of the charge sheets issued to Sarvashri Kanchan Pal Singh, Kamla Shanker, Ganga Saran, Tejpal Sharma, Munshi Lal and Aidal Singh and subseqent action of the employers on their charge-sheets would remain open for scrutiny by the Regional Assistant Labour Commissioner, Agra, who would scrutinise the cases of these six workmen and advise the parties. His advice was to be final and binding on the parties. He was to give his advise in one instalment or in more than one instalment. It was also agreed that the parties would expect that he would be able to give his advice as early as possible. However, the overall period would not exceed two and a half months. It appears that the Regional Assistant Labour Commissioner could not give his advice within the stipulated time but gave his advice on 30th September, 1968. He advised that two of the workmen be reinstated and the other four workmen, namely, Kanchan Pal Singh, Aidal Singh, Kamla Shanker and Ganga Saran, who are the petitioners respondents Nos. 1 to 4, should not be reinstated because the inquiry against them held by the management was not proved to be unfair. The workmen did not, however, accept the advice in respect of the petitioners respondents Nos. 1 to 4. On 30th September, 1969, the State Government referred the industrial dispute for adjudication under Section 4-K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act as to whether the dismissal of Kanchan Pal. Aidal Singh, Kamla Shanker and Ganga Saran with effect from 11th September, 1953 ( ) was justified and legal and if it was not so what reliefs and damages were the workmen entitled to. While the proceedings were pending before the Labour Court the State Government passed an order on 14th April, 1970 under Section 6-G of the said Act withdrawing the proceedings. That order was impugned by the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 by a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on the ground, inter alia, that the reasons given for the withdrawal of the proceedings was not a valid and relevant reason under Section 6-G of the Act. The learned Single Judge found that the dispute instead of ending had continued to exist despite the advice given by the Regional Assistant Labour Commissioner. The dispute was not only continued but was reagitated after that advice. The learned Single Judge observed that the reasons must be relevant to the order of the withdrawal. Having found that in the instant case the reason for the withdrawal of the adjudication was only illusory the order of withdrawal could not be sustained and was, therefore, quashed.
(3.) The learned Counsel for the appellant contended before us that the expediency of making a reference is at the sole discretion of the State Government and unless the order for withdrawal of the proceedings was not based on any reason or was mala fide the same could not be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution. It was also contended that the settlement arrived at before the Conciliation Officer was binding on the parties and the advice of the Regional Assistant Labour Commissioner completely decided the dispute between the parties, hence the State Government could withdraw the reference of dispute inasmuch as the dispute Thad ceased to exist. In our view these contentions have no merits.;