- (1.) This writ petition by the Vishnu Pratap Sugar Works (Pvt.) Limited, Khadda, District Doeria (hereinafter referred to as the company), is directed against a notification dated 4-2-1964 by which the following question was referred by the Government of U. P. for adjudication to the Labour Court, Opposite Party No. 1 : "Whether the employers have kept the workman Shri Jugal Kishore Prasad son of Sri Babu Ram, Assistant Cashier, suspended continuously with effect from 25-12-1962, legally and/or justifiably? If not, to what relief is the workman concerned entitled?"
(2.) The petitioner also prays for quashing the proceedings pending in the Labour Court, Opposite Party No. 1, as a result of the above mentioned reference order. He has prayed for a writ of prohibition on the ground that the reference is without jurisdiction. The basis of the petitioner's contention is that a previous reference had already been made of the following question to the Labour Court by a notification dated 13-9-1963 : "Whether the employers have suspended Sri Jugal Kishore Prasad son of Sri Babu Ram, Assistant Cashier, with effect from 25-12-1962, legally and, or justifiably? If not, to what relief is the workman concerned entitled?" It appears that on 4-2-1964 an application was filed on behalf of the workman praying for an adjournment to move the Government for the amendment of the reference order. The Labour Court observed that this was a legitimate request. It went on to observe: "The reference, as it stands, can hardly give any relief to the workman as the provision for suspension is contained in the Standing Orders and the employers have a right to suspend. The real matter of controversy is whether the employers were justified or not in keeping the workman under prolonged suspension and without payment of any allowance. Unfortunately, the reference does not cover this point in dispute. The workman, therefore, in the interest of justice, should be allowed an opportunity and have the reference order suitably amended." The case was then adjourned to 11-3-1964.
(3.) The petitioner avers that this adjournment on the date fixed for framing of issues was illegal. It is submitted that the Labour Court, having come to the conclusion that no relief could be granted\to the workman, was bound to answer the reference in accordance with this conclusion and that it failed to exercise its jurisdiction in not doing so. It was also submitted that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to adjourn the case for obtaining an amendment of the reference by the State Government.;