ORDER

Two questions arise in this appeal, namely, (1) whether the State should hear the respondent/employer before making a reference on a second representation under Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the Act ) since it was rejected on an earlier occasion; and (2) whether there is an order of reference by the State Government so as to entitle the appellant to have the dispute adjudicated by the tribunal.

2. The facts are not in dispute. Way back in 1955, the appellant had joined the respondents as a workmen (Khalasi). He was promoted on September 6, 1972 as a tape-reader. He was served with a charge-sheet on June 28, 1979 and his services were terminated on August 9, 1979. On June 30, 1981, he made a demand on the respondent/employer for reinstatement which was rejected. Thereafter, he made an application for reference under Section 10 of the Act to the State Government which was rejected by order dated October 20, 1981. The appellant again made a representation on March 25, 1982 and the Minister made a note on the representation directing to make a reference. However, since no communication was received by the appellant, he wrote a letter to the Labour Commiss