( 1 ). With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties the matter is taken up for final disposal.

( 2 ). The writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 9. 11. 1999 of the Government of NCT of Delhi referring the disputes raised by respondent No. 5, an Architect, earlier employed with the respondent. An offer of appointment was made to the petitioner on 26. 8. 1993 and the appointment letter was issued to the petitioner on 29. 9. 1993. The services of the petitioner were terminated vide letter dated 30. 4. 1998.

( 3 ). Mr. Saini, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contends that there is no authority with the concerned officer in the NCT of Delhi to make the said reference in view of lack of territorial jurisdiction. Mr. Saini contends that respondent No. 5 was appointed as an Architect to work in the Real Estate Division in terms of the appointment letter dated 29. 9. 1993 and from the first day itself was working at gurgaon. It is further stated that company leased accommodation was also made available to respondent No. 5 at Gurgaon as would be apparent from the letter dated 29. 1. 1994. Mr. Saini referred to the Full Bench decision of