JUDGMENT

J.S. Khehar, J.

1. The Appellant before this Court is the management/industry. It has approached this Court, to assail the competence of the Respondents (who are the workmen) to be represented before the Industrial Tribunal, Meerut (hereafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), through five of the Respondents/workmen (Dharam Singh, Sanjay Nagar, Ranveer Nagar, Pratap Singh and Dhanpat Singh) out of the 113 workmen who were agitating the industrial dispute before the said Tribunal.

2. Originally, the cause of the Respondents-workmen was espoused by the Noida Engineering Mazdoor Sangh. However, consequent upon the de-recognition of the aforesaid Union in 2003, the Management i.e. the Appellant before us, raised an objection that the cause of Respondent-workmen could no longer be presented through the Noida Engineering Mazdoor Sangh. The Appellant management accordingly prayed that the Industrial Tribunal, should not proceed with the adjudication of the matter. On account of the submission, that the representation of the Respondents-workmen before the Industrial Tribunal, could only be in consonance with Section 6-I of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Industrial Disputes Act') read with Rule 40 of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Industrial Disputes Rules'), it was suggested that the Respondent-workmen should be permitted to make their choice in consonance therewith. This is the crux of the dispute that has been projected before us for our consideration.

3. Despite, the limited scope of the dispute which arises for our consideration, it is essential for us, to notice the factual background to the controversy. In the first instance, prolonged conciliation proceedings were conducted before the Conciliation Board. Consequent upon the failure of the conciliation proceedings, the State Government on 28.05.1998 referred the following disputes for adjudication to the Labour Court, Ghaziabad:

Whether non-declaration of the 113 workmen, mentioned in the schedule enclosed, as permanent from the date of their employment and not paying them equal salary and other benefits by the Management is illegal and unjustified? If yes, to what relief and other consequential benefits the workmen are entitled to and from which date?

4. At the instant juncture, the Respondents-workmen made a representation to the State Government requiring it to transfer the matter for adjudication from the Labour Court, Ghaziabad to the Industrial Tribunal, Meerut. The request of the Respondents-workmen was acceded to, whereupon, the State Government passed an order dated 06.03.1999. The Management i.e. the Appellant before this Court, assailed the above order dated 06.03.1999 by filing Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 16666 of 1999. The aforesaid Writ Petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the High Court') by an order dated 26.09.2002. The order dated 06.03.1999 by which the State Government had transferred the referred disputes from the Labour Court, Ghaziabad, to the Industrial Tribunal, Meerut, was set aside, on the ground that the Appellant-management had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing. The State Government was accordingly directed to pass an appropriate order, in accordance with law, within a period of six months.

5. In compliance of the directions issued by the High Court (in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 16666 of 1999), the State Government by its order dated 11.02.2003, re-transferred the dispute from the Industrial Tribunal, Meerut, to the Labour Court, Ghaziabad. The instant order was sought to be assailed by the Union representing the Respondents-workmen, through Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 13986 of 2003, before the High Court. The above writ petition came to be dismissed by a learned Single Judge on 02.04.2003. It would however be relevant to mentio