( 1 ) THIS Court has heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner, the learned advocate for the State-respondents and also the learned Advocate for the respondent Nos. 3 to 54. Briefly, the facts of the present case are as follows: there is no dispute that the respondent Nos. 3 to 54 are persons who have retired from the employment of the petitioner-company. It also appears that there is no dispute that the respondent Nos. 3 to 54 are enjoying their pension in terms of the relevant settlement. It appears that an industrial dispute was raised by the respondent Nos. 3 to 54 and by an order of reference the following issues were referred to the respondent No. 1 for adjudication: " (i) Whether the demand of the retired employees as per list enclosed for pension at higher rates as given to the subsequent retirees is justified? (ii) What relief, if any, are they entitled to?"

( 2 ) WRITTEN statement was filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 to 54 and written statement was also filed on behalf of the petitioner-company. The petitioner raised the question of maintainability of the order of reference and took the stand that the said order of reference was without jurisdiction inasmuch a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document