( 1 ) THE only question which arises in these three petitions under arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the Industrial company is whether the Labour Court had committed an error of law or jurisdiction by committing procedural irregularity in calling upon the employer to produce documentary and oral evidence in three reference cases relating to dismissal of the three workmen. The petitioner in all the three petitions is the same. Originally thirty-three references were made to the Labour Court, rajkot, under Sec. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act relating to dismissal of thirty-three workmen, but thirty disputes came to be settled or disposed of in accordance with law.

( 2 ) ). The workman Mahavirsinh Shivubha was a gardener in the garden department of the petitioners factory and his services were terminated with effect from 25-1-1982, hence the dispute was referred to the Labour Court in Reference (LC) No. 958 of 1984.

( 3 ) THE workman Raghu Arjan who was serving as Turner in machine shop of the petitioners factory. His services were terminated on 21-1-1982 and the industrial dispute was referred to the Labour Court in Reference (LC) no. 961 of 1984. ,

(