Bimal Chandra Basak, J. - (1.) This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order of reference passed by the State Government under the provisions of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The facts of this case so far as relevant for the purpose of the disposal of the application herein are as follows:-
(2.) On the 4th of January, 1960, the respondent No. 4 was appointed by the petitioner company as Stenographer on a probation for three months. On the 4th of April, 1960, the respondent No. 4 service was confirmed. It is stated that at the time of appointment the respondent No. 4 was a Matriculate. But it is stated that subsequently he passed the M. Com. Examination. It is stated that in November, 1961, the petitioner company directed the respondent No. 4 to work under a Junior Executive and a Senior Clerical Assistant. Be that as it may, it appears that certain representations were made by respondent No. 4 to the Managing Director of the Company. Accordingly to the management this contained some allegations against the Area Manager concerned. Accordingly a show cause notice was issued on the 27th January, 1969. On the 17th of March, 1969, reply was given to that and thereafter by en order dated 29th of April, 1969, the respondent No. 4 was discharged from service. On the 16th of September, 1969, the respondent No. 4 raised a dispute. There were certain conciliation proceedings and the report was submitted. However, the Government ultimately decided not to refer this matter for adjudication under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Being aggrieved by the same, the workmen filed a writ petition in this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed and the Rule was discharged. No appeal was preferred therefrom but this was not the end of the matter. What transpires is that a show cause notice was issued about four years later, that is, on the 18th January, 1974 to the petitioners whereby the Government slated that it wanted to review its earlier decision and wanted to refer the matter for adjudication under the provisions of The said Act. The petitioner Company objected to the notice and gave a reply to the same. On the 15th May, 1976, the order of reference was published by the Government. This is challenged in this proceeding.
(3.) The learned Advocates appearing in support of the rule has very frankly stated before me that in view of the decision in M/s. Avon Service Production Agencies (P) Ltd. v. Industrial Tribunal, Haryana and Others, reported in AIR 1979 SC 170, it is no longer open to contend that the second reference by the Government it incompetent, after the Government has officially rejected the case for reference earlier. What hat been contended is that there was no fresh consideration and no fresh material end that there is non-application of mind.;