B.L. Yadav, J. - (1.) By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the prayer is that a writ, Order or direction be issued quashing the reference made by the State of U.P. under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act (the Act for short), as the same was made without applying the mind and the said reference has been made presupposing the status of respondent No. 2, the workman, as Upper Division Clerk, whereas in fact it was a disputed question. It was stated in the writ petition that the reference to the following effect was bad: "KYA SEWAYOJAKON DWARA APNE SHRAMIK SHREE ANUP BEHARILAL SRI-VASTAVA PUTRA SRI VISHWANATH BEHARI LAL SRIVASTAVA UPPER DIVISION CLERK KEE SEWAIN DECEMBER 26, 1990 SESAMAAPT KIYAJANA UCHIT TATHA/ATHWA WAIDHANIK HAI."
(2.) The portrayal of the essential facts are that earlier a writ petition (Writ Petition No. 1754 of 1991 Anup Behari Lal Srivastava v. Director, North Central Zone Cultural Centre, 14 C.S.P. Singh Marg, Allahabad) was filed by respondent No. 2 but in that petition an objection was taken by the present petitioner (the respondent) that the writ petition was not maintainable as the North Central Zone Cultural Centre was not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and the present respondent No. 2, the workman, has an alternative remedy by way of filing an application before the conciliation Officer and also seeking a reference under Section 4-K of the Act. On these objections earlier petition was consequently dismissed. Thereafter, the reference to the aforesaid effect was made by the State of Uttar Pradesh under Section 4-K of the Act. Now the present petition has been filed primarily taking the ground that the Reference has been made without application of mind and presupposing that the respondent No. 2, the workman, was Upper Division Clerk and that he has left the services on account of his own volition. Hence, there was no justification for the reference.
(3.) The aforesaid averments in the writ petition have been denied by respondent No. 2 by filing a counter affidavit. The affidavits have been exchanged and it was suggested by the learned counsel for the parties that the petition itself be decided on merits. This is how I proceed to decide the petition on merits.;