S.K. Dhaon, D.S. Sinha, J. - (1.) The petitioner challenges the legality of the communication dated 17th March, 1988 sent to him by the Deputy/Assistant Labour Commissioner on behalf of the Special Secretary in the Department of Labour in the Government of Uttar Pradesh. By the said communication the Deputy/Assistant Labour Commissioner informed the petitioner that the State Government did not consider it appropriate to make a reference of an industrial dispute. The Precised words used in Hindi are:- "Pararthi ko suchit kiya jata hai ki ukt vivad ko Sarkar ne abhinirnaya hetu ameayukta samjha hai. Atayeo yah vivad dakhil Daftar kar diya gaya hai." A similar matter came up before this Court in the case of Sudarshan Misra v. State of U.P. and another, 1987 UPLBEC 516 in which the words used for refusing to make a reference were some what similar to the words used in the present case. This Court interpreted the communication to mean that the State Government has given its opinion on the merits of the dispute. This Court quashed the order and directed the State Government to pass a fresh order applying its mind to the facts of the case. We accordingly quash the decision of the State Government as communicated to the petitioner by the impugned communication and direct the State Government to pass a fresh order on merits, in accordance with law and in the light of the observation made above and in the observation made in the case of Sudarshan Misra (supra). We have heard learned Standing Counsel in opposition to this petition. As the facts of the case are clear and the case is covered by a decision of this Court we do not consider it necessary to call for a counter-affidavit.
(2.) We, therefore, dispose of the writ petition finally. Petition allowed.;