Bopanna, J.—The question for consideration in this case is whether the state Government has got the power under S. 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to make a reference after it had earlier refuse to make such a reference Admittedly the dispute was one under S. 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947).

2. The contention of the Petitioner is that in the light of the Ruling of this Court in Indian Telephone Industries Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, ILR (1978) KAR 1282, the State Government after refusing to make a reference at an earlier point of time is precluded from making a reference without hearing the parties to the dispute, since certain civil consequences flow from its earlier order refusing to make the reference.

3. Mr. Subba Rao, learned counsel appearing for the workman has maintained that the power of the State Government to make a reference under S. 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act is now well settled by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Avon Services Production Agencies (P) Ltd. Vs. Industrial Tribunal, Haryana and Others, AIR 1979 SC 170. In that case, the Supreme Court has held that the power of the State Government is not exhausted even after declining to make the reference at an earlier point of time under S. 10(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, he maintained that the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Indian Telephone Industries case referred to above is no longer good law.

4. Mr. Prabhakar, the learned counsel appearing for the Management contended that the Indian Telephone Industries case has been followed by the Calcutta High Court in the case of American Express International Banking Corporation Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, (1979) 2 LLJ 22 Cal, and this Court in the Indian Telephone Industries case (supra) followed the decision of the Madras High Court in Tiruchy Steel Rolling Mills Ltd., v. S. Gnanasambandan and others (1974) 46 F.J.R. 158. Since the Supreme Court has directly dealt with this point on facts which are similar to the facts of this case, I think it is more appropriate that this matter should be referred to a Division Bench for consideration whether the Indian Telephone Industries case was rightly decided and whether this case is covered by the Indian Telephone Industries case (supra).

5. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is referred to a Division Bench.

Malimath, J.—This case has come before us on a reference made by Justice Bopanna on the ground that the view expressed by a Division Bench of this Court in the Indian Telephone Industries Ltd. v. State of Karnataka and Others (supra), that where the Government once refused to make a reference after hearing both the parties and later makes a reference at the instance of one of the parties without giving an opportunity to make representations to the management, the decision to refer is illegal, require reconsideration in the light of the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. Avon Services Production Agencies (P) Ltd. v. Industrial Tribunal, Haryana and Others, (supra).

2. The undisputed facts of the case are as follows :

The 3rd respondent was working as an Assistant Manager under the Petitioner-Management. A disciplinary enquiry was held against him in respect of certain charges of misconduct and he was dismissed from service on 11th February, 1977. The 3rd respondent raised an Industrial Dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Conciliation Officer, Bangalore Division II, Bangalore. Ultimately, the State Government made an order on the 3rd November, 1977 as per Ex. 'A' declining to refer the dispute between the parties for adjudication under S. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act on the ground that the workman not having made out a prima facie case to show that the management's action offended the principles of natural justice, the case does not merit reference for adjudication. Thereafter the State Government made the impugned Order under S. 10(1)(