1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Kiran C. Raval for the petitioner.

2. Looking to the prayer made by the petitioner in para 20-(i) of the petition, the petitioner is praying to quash and set aside the impugned order of Reference dated 22.6.2007 at annexure E and direct the Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara not to continue adjudication of the Reference being Ref.(IT) NO. 84 of 2007 pursuant to impugned order at annexure E. Petitioner is also praying to stay further adjudication proceedings of said reference pending before the Industrial Tribunal at Vadodara pending hearing and final disposal of this petition.

3. Learned Advocate Mr. Raval has raised various contentions before this Court while challenging the aforesaid order of reference. He submitted that this being an individual dispute converted in an industrial dispute, therefore, order of reference is bad. He also submitted that the union which is not representing substantial number of workmen has raised a dispute only in respect of employees those who are placed under suspension by the petitioner company. He also submitted that recently, there is settlement wherein the union is not a party which has raised industrial dispute, except that, all the workmen have accepted the settlement in toto. He also submitted that this dispute has been characterized as an industrial dispute only with a view to get advantage of pendency of an industrial dispute, impliedly to get protection of section 33 of the ID Act, 1947. He also submitted that in other matter wherein union is a party, preliminary contention has been raised by the petitioner challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the reference which issue is still not decided and is pending before the industrial tribunal,Baroda. Learned Advocate Mr. Raval is having impression that the Tribunal will not decide it because the tribunal will rely upon the statement of the other side advocate that he will not proceed with the matter and that he will take adjournment and adjournment till he wants and, therefore, he submitted that the order of reference is bad and illegal. Except these contentions, no other contention was raised by the learned advocate Mr. KC Raval before this Court and no decision was cited by him before this court in support of the contentions recorded hereinabove.

4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Advocate Mr. KC Raval before this Court. Considering the submission of learned advocate Mr. Raval that the order of reference is bad, learned advocate Mr. Raval has not been able to point out as to which right of the company is violated by respondent no.1 by making an order of reference. Unless and until it is successfully demonstrated by the party challenging an order of reference that it is violative of any right of the petitioner, such party cannot be permitted to challenge the order of reference only on the ground that the reference is bad. Even if it is believed that the order of reference is bad, then also,that would, ipso-facto, not entitle such party to challenge the same before the higher forum.So long as the right of the petitioner company not adversely affected by the respondent no.1 while passing the order of reference,t his court cannot entertain the petition only on that ground. Writ petition is maintainable only when right of the parties are adversely affected by the action or order of the State Authority. Learned Advocate Mr. Raval has not been able to point out before this court that because of the order of reference made by respondent no.1, any right of the petitioner has been adversely affected. Therefore, on this count, writ petition is not maintainable. Apart from that, whatever contentions raised by the petitioner in this petition before this court can be raised by the petitioner even before the industrial tribunal as well while participating in the reference proceedings and the petitioner can participate in the reference proceedings without prejudice to his rights and con