K.N. Singh, J. - (1.) Hindustan Lever, Ltd., is a company engaged in various operations including manufacture of banaspati, animal food stuff and dehydration of peas. In order to maintain availability of peas for the purpose of dehydration, the company engaged itself in agricultural operations at Ghaziabad. The company closed down its agricultural operation department and terminated the services of its workmen employed therein. The company offered alternative employment to the workmen whose services were terminated ; some of the affected workmen accepted alternative employment while others did not accept the offer. The workmen raised an industrial dispute, after the failure of conciliation proceedings ; the State Government by its order, dated 23 July 1973, refused to refer the dispute for adjudication on the ground that it was not expedient to refer the dispute for adjudication. Later on, the State Government by its order, dated 10 August 1973, referred the dispute for adjudication to the Third Industrial Tribunal at Kanpur under S. 4K of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act. The adjudication was registered as Case No. 128 of 1973, before the Third Industrial Tribunal, Allahabad. The Tribunal issued notice to the petitioner- company and the workmen for appearance.
(2.) On 9 October 1973, the State Government in exercise of its power under S. 6G of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), issued an order withdrawing the adjudication case from the file of the Third Industrial Tribunal, Allahabad. The State Government issued another order on 10 October 1973, under S. 4K of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act referring the dispute to the Labour Court at Meerut for adjudication. The dispute referred was whether the closure of agricultural operation by the employers with effect from 7 October 1972, was bona fide and genuine and whether it was closure or lookout and if it was a lockout whether it was legal and valid and whether the workmen were entitled to any relief. The second question was whether the termination of services of the workmen mentioned in the schedule to the order of reference was illegal, if so, to what relief the workmen were entitled? The company thereupon filed the present petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the State Government's orders dated 9 and 10 October 1973, claiming relief for the quashing of the orders and for the issue of a writ of prohibition directing the Labour Court not to hear or decide the dispute referred to it. The petitioner-company obtained an interim order as a result of which proceedings before the Labour Court have remained stayed during all this time.
(3.) The petitioner-company has raised a number of grounds in the writ petition but during the course of hearing only three grounds were pressed before us by Sri S.C. (Chare, learned counsel for the petitioner. He urged that the impugned orders of withdrawal and transfer are illegal as the State Government has no power to transfer an adjudication case pending before the Industrial Tribunal to the Labour Court under S. 6G of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the State Government has failed to record any reasons in the order of transfer and no opportunity was given to the petitioner before the adjudication proceedings were transferred. Since the employers closed their agricultural operations, the services of respondent-workmen were terminated on account of closure. Consequently, the State Government had no jurisdiction to refer the dispute for adjudication, Lastly, he urged that as the State Government had itself refused to refer the dispute fox adjudication on 23 July 1973, it had no jurisdiction to reconsider the matter and refer the same for adjudication.;