B.D. Agrawal, D.S. Sinha, JJ. - (1.) Upon the averments contained in the petition it would appear that according to the case of the petitioner, he is a workman who has put in more than 240 days of work continuously. The contention is that his services have been terminated by the respondent without compliance to the conditions precedent laid down in this behalf under Section 25-F, Industrial Disputes Act and thus there is illegal retrenchment brought about. The question raised is whether on these averments the petitioner should not appropriately at this stage seek his remedy before the labour Court upon the reference being made thereto by the State Government as contemplated under Section 4 - K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act.
(2.) Learned Counsel urged that power conferred on the State Government under Section 4 - K of the said Act to make a reference to the Labour Court is discretionary and it may be that the State Government on these facts declines to make a reference. The power is discretionary undoubtedly but the discretion cannot be exercised arbitrarily or in unreasonable manner. In case it were to appear at and Subsequent Stage that the reference has been denied by the State Government unreasonably, the petitioner is not rendered without effective remedy including by way of approaching this Court at that stage nor does there appear weight in the contention raised by the petitioner that the Conciliation Officer may decline or that the proceedings before him may be unnecessarily delayed. There is time limit within which the Conciliation Officer has to report in the proceedings. In that view of law adequate alternative and aftecacious remedy is available to the petitioner such as in the present. We are supported from the observations made in Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamlakar Sanataram Wadke, AIR 1975 SC 2238 ; Rohtas Industries Ltd. v. Rohtas Industries Staff Union, AIR 1976 SC 425 ; Basant Kumar Sarkar and others v. The Eagle Rolling Mills Ltd. and others, AIR 1964 SC 1260 and elaborate discussion contained in the recent decision of the Full Bench in Dinesh Prasad and others v. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1986 Pat 112. This was also the view taken by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 5897 of 1983 (Shitla Prasad Singh v. U.P. Cement Corporation Ltd. etc.) dated 16th August, 1983.
(3.) For the above the petition is dismissed summarily at this stage. Petition dismissed.;