JUDGMENT :

H.K. Rathod, J.

Heard Mr. K. D. Gandhi learned Advocate for Nanavati Associates on behalf of petitioner, learned A.G.P. Ms. Mathur for respondent No. 1 and learned Advocate Mr. Mansuri for respondent No. 3.

2. In present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of Reference made by State Government while exercising power under Section 10(1) of the I.D. Act, 1947 dated 31-5-2008 (Annexure-A, Pages 13 to 16) as well as notice issued by Industrial Tribunal, Baroda dated 12-6-2008 in Reference (I.T.) No. 63 of 2008 (Annexure-B, Page 18).

3. In present proceedings, affidavit-in-reply is filed by respondent No. 1, another affidavit-in-reply is also filed by respondent No. 3-Union. An affidavit-in-rejoinder on behalf of petitioner against affidavit-in-reply of respondent No. 3 is also filed. There is an affidavit of Mr. P.R. Mehta, Manager (E.R.) of petitioner-Company is also on record.

4. Mr. Gandhi learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner pointed out in support of challenge made in present petition Page 132 where a letter written to Labour Commissioner dated 1-4-2008 by petitioner (Annexure-L). In the said letter, it has been brought to the notice of Labour Commissioner by petitioner-Company that industrial disputes has been settled between workman and company on 17-3-2008. Therefore, no reference is required to be made for adjudication of dispute raised in Conciliation Case No. 15 of 2007 by Union. This letter has been signed by Mr. Husain Solanki, Secretary of Rasaynik Kamdar Sangh and Shri Prashant Limaye, General Manager of petitioner-Company along with 98 workmen, those who have accepted settlement and copy of notice was also published on Notice Board on 14-3-2008. Therefore, his submission is that Conciliation Case No. 15 of 2007 where dispute has been raised by Rajya General Kamdar Mandal is already settled between workmen, Union and petitioner-Company. He has also referred the letter dated 30-10-2006 of Rajya General Kamdar Mandal. He also referred settlement dated 14-9-2005 which was challenged before Tribunal in Reference (I.T.) No. 10 of 2004 wherein Industrial Tribunal, Baroda has held by award dated 27-2-2007 that said settlement is found to be just, fair and reasonable. He has also referred the award passed by Industrial Tribunal in respect of Reference No. 10 of 2004, Exh. 86 (Annexure-F, Page Nos. 51 to 100). In the said decision, Industrial Tribunal, Baroda has come to conclusion that settlement arrived at between petitioner company and Rasaynik Kamdar Sangh, Exh. 34, is found to be reasonable, just and proper and on the basis of terms of settlement, award has been passed by Industrial Tribunal, Baroda by an order dated 27-2-2007. This award has been terminated by Rajya General Kamdar Mandal on 30-10-2006 and on 16-1-2007, fresh demand means industrial dispute was raised by respondent No. 3-Union. On 1-3-2007, respondent No. 3 had issued notice to terminate aforesaid award of settlement (Pages 51 to 100) and gave fresh Charter of Demands. Subsequently, there is a settlement under Section 2(p) of the I. D. Act, 1947 with Rasaynik Kamdar Sangh dated 17-3-2008 where each employee has signed the settlement under Section 2(p) of the I. D. Act, 1947. He also referred Page 113 where settlement has been signed by each workman. He also referred a letter dated 16-4-2007 (Annexure-I, Page 111) addressed to Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Bharuch by petitioner-Company raising objection against the dispute raised by respondent No. 3-Union. According to petitioner-Company, the Rasaynik Kamdar Sangh is recognized Union and respondent No. 3 is not having majority of workmen those who are working with petitioner-Company. He also referred to an affidavit (Page 265) of Mr. P.R. Mehta, Manager (E.R.) of the petitioner company together with Annexure-I to the said affidavit which bears the signature of each workman those who have accepted the settlement dated 17-3-2008 by which the workmen named in Annexure-I