( 1 ) ON Preliminary Hearing the Government of Karnatata (1st respondent herein), by its order dated 23-5-1981 (vide Annexure-P in No. SWL 18 LAW 81), referred, under sub-section (2) of S. 17 of of the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous provisions) Act, 1955 (the Act), a dispute said to exist between the petitioners and the 4th respondent, to the Labour Court, bangalore, for adjudication.

( 2 ) THE dispute relates to the claim of the 4th respondent for recovery of B sum of Rs 72,719-38 from the petitioners which according to him, they were liable to pay towards his wages and bonus for the period from 9-7-1971 to 31-12-1979.

( 3 ) IN these petitipns, filed under art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate w. rit or order or direction quashing the order of reference, annexure-P.

( 4 ) THE 1st petitioner, which is a proprietary concern, alone claims to own and publish a. Kannada Weekly under the name and style "prajamatha". According to it, the 4th respondent used to previously work under it from 9-7-1971 to 4-6-1980, on which date his services had been terminated. !t further pleads that subsequent to the terminatioh of his service, the 4th respondent had ceased to be a working journalist within the meaning of S. 2 (f) of the Act. It is the case of both the petitioners that the 2nd petitioner, a private limited company owning a printing press, only does the printing work of the Weekly and does not have anything to do with the affairs of the 1st petitioner and is unconcerned with the alleged dispute raised by the 4th respondent.

( 5 ) EARLIER to the State Government taking a decision to refer the alleged dispute to the Labour Court, the 4th respondent had approached the Comm's- sioner of Labour of the State of karnataka under sub-section (1) of S, 17 of the Act for issuing a certificate as contemplated uader that suit-section for the amount claimed by him and for recovery of the same as an arrear of land revenue. According to the 4th respondent the Commissioner of Labour was the authority specified by the State Gov- ernment in this behalf as contemplated in the said sub-section and had power and jurisdiction to deal with his claim under that provision. In this connection he relies on a notification dated 17-3 1975 issued by the State Government under S. 17 of the Act specifying the Labour Com missioner as the authority for purposes of that section (May see Govt Notification no. SWL 38 LAW 71) The Commissioner of Labour, after issuing notices to the petitioners and hearing them and the 4th respondent, rejected the application made by ;he 4th respondent on the ground that he had no powers to deal with such a claim unless the claim is refe- red to him by the State Government, whom the concerned were required to approach at the first instance (vide Annex- ure-O in No. WJA/cr-14/79-80 dated 21-1-1981 ). Ft mav be noted that the 1st petitioner, reserving his right to raise further objections on merits at a later stage, had taken up objections, before the commissioner of Labour in this matter questioning his jurisdiction and competence to deal with this claim of the 4th respondent.

( 6 ) THE petitioners are challenging the impugned order of reference (Annex- ure-P) mainly on two grounds namely : (1) that sub-section (2) of S 17 of the Act, under which the impugned order has been made by the State Government, itself is unconstitutional and vojd offending art. 14 of the Constitution, conferring, as it does, arbitrary and unguided powers to the State- Government in the matter of making reference to the Labour court; and (2) that, even otherwise, the refer- nce having been made without hearing his clients, was void as the same had been done in violation of one of the basic postulates of the principles of natural justice, the princple of fair hearing.

( 7 ) SINES both the grounds of attack touch on the ambit and scope of S. 17 of the Act