( 1 ) BY this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks directions of this Court to respondent No. 1 - Chief Labour commissioner (Central) and respondent No. 2 - Union of India to refer the industrial dispute centering round demands elaborately enumerated in Annexure A to the petition, to the National Industrial Tribunal, by invoking powers under Sec. 10 (1- a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (i. D. Act for short ). The petitioner is a registered federation of 13 different unions which are having their respective membership in 13 States. It is duly registered under the Indian Trade Unions Act since 6-12-1975. It is inter alia contended by the petitioner that as respondent No. 3 is multi-State establishment, it has sought conciliation and reference from respondent Nos. 1 and 2 invoking aids of Sec. 10 (1-A) and Sec. 7-B of the I. D. Act. It is also the case of the petitioner that authorities have not exercised their power of conciliating and intervening in the industrial disputes and, therefore, the pay-scales of members of the petitioner federation have stagnated since 1-1-1996 despite the last settlement has expired in December 1995. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the petition for early conciliation and resultant reference to the national Industrial Tribunal. The petitioner federation had submitted a charter of demands to the employer on 24-11-1995 in view of expiry of earlier settlement on 31-12-1995. This set of demands for wage scale and general service conditions were submitted on behalf of 13 affiliated unions and their members who are spread overin 13 different States.

( 2 ) THE petitioner federation has got membership in various establishments of bajaj Electricals Limited which is having its head office, at Bombay, and the members of these establishments and offices are member of their respective unions who are constituent units of the petitioner federation. A State-wise list of such constituent units and establishments is placed on record at Enclosure i. A charter of demands made by the petitioner federation to the respondent employer is at enclosure ii which are part of letter at Annexure a from the petitioner federation to respondent No. 1.

( 3 ) THE petitioner federation is also duly recognised by the company for settling industrial disputes regarding wages and other service conditions. The last settlement was signed by the petitioner federation with the employer on 28-6-1992 under Sec. 2 (p) of the I. D. Act. Moreover, the said last settlement came to be adopted in toto by the State-unions which are affiliated bodies, with the respondent establishment before the State Government labour authorities. This method of recording settlement is being followed since almost 1975. The petitioner federation has, however, contended that earlier employer was co-operative with the result, there was no occasion for any Reference.

( 4 ) HOWEVER, a Reference became necessary on account of the fact that the employer had not started any negotiations with the petitioner federation so far, because of non-co-operative approach adopted by the employer. It is also pleaded by the petitioner that the employer is now trying to split the workers by inducing small group of workers in one of the States to sign the settlement with them. It is alleged that, now, the employer refuses to enter into any negotiations unless the said unfair settlement with the small group of workers is adopted by other constituents. It is in this context that it has been pleaded that the employer is forcing affiliated unions of the petitioner federation to have large number of References before the Industrial Tribunals of different States and his adopting such strategy so as to tire-out the petitioner federation and its said units. It in this set of circumstances that the petitioner is compelled to seek intervention from respondent No. 1 who has not yet initiated any dialogue despite repeated demands and reque