RAJESH BALIA, J.

( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant. These two appeals are directed against the common judgment passed by the learned single judge dated March 8, 2002 by which the writ petitions filed by the petitioner-appellant challenging the two orders of references made by the appropriate Government of an industrial dispute between the petitioner-appellant and its workmen, were dismissed. These two appeals are identical on facts and raise common question and therefore, they are being heard and decided together as was done by the learned single Judge.

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to these appeals are that the respondents-workmen Mala Ram and Chhela Ram in D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 357/2003 arising from S. B. Civil writ Petition No. 1871/2001, had been appointed ostensibly by a fixed term appointment on September 14, 1993 for a period of six months and their services were terminated on March 17, 1994. A complaint against this termination was lodged before the joint Labour Commissioner, Jodhpur soon after vide complaint dated May 16, 1994 through an Authorised Representative of Metal engineering and Auto Works Union. According to this complaint, on September 14, 1993 the workmen were employed as Helpers on a work, which was of permanent nature, on daily wages @ Rs. 30/- per day. They were not taken back on duty on March 17, 1994 when they appeared at the gate for discharging their work. It was further alleged in the complaint that at the time of termination of services of these workmen, some new employees were employed by the employer on the same post and they are continuing, though junior to them with the establishment. A demand was raised for taking them back on duty on May 3, 1994, but the same was not responded to. A claim for reinstatement with back wages was laid.

( 3 ) IN response to this notice, the employer before the Joint Labour Commissioner stated that the termination of the said workmen is governed by Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 (in short "the Act of 1947")and therefore, it does not come within the purview of retrenchment. As the termination has taken place under the agreement, no industrial dispute in that situation arises. This was replied on behalf of workmen on June 23, 1994 further alleging that the termination is in violation of Section 25-G of the Act of 1947. On the failure report by the Joint Labour commissioner, in the first instance the appropriate Government i. e. Government of rajasthan refused to refer the dispute to the labour Court by the following order:"vernacular matter omitted. "

( 4 ) THEREAFTER, the petitioner came to know about the reference having been made on review application filed on behalf of workmen vide order dated November 6, 1999 (Annexure-P9) when he received notice from the Labour Court about receipt of reference.

( 5 ) AGGRIEVED with the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 1871/2001 in respect of the aforesaid two workmen.

( 6 ) THE other (sic) Writ Petition No. 1876/2001 was in respect of workmen Adu ram and Kalu Ram. In the case of Adu Ram and Kalu Ram, it was alleged that appointments were given to them on September 1,1993 as daily rated workman @ Rs. 30/- per day against the permanent work. After their appointments, certain other persons were also appointed on the same post who are continuing on the post. The workmen asked for permanent status after completion of six months period. It was indicated that on March 1,1994 when they will come on duty, they will be offered such status, but they did not allow them to join duties on march 1, 1994 when they reported. It was also stated in their claim before the Joint Labour commissioner that they are working against the posts, which are permanent in nature and persons appointed, after the workmen, are continuing and therefore, their termination is illegal and invalid and their request for taking them back on duty has not been responded to.

( 7 ) A