Prem Chand Jain, J.

1. The workmen of New Snow View Transport Private Limited, Pathankot, approached this Court under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the award made by respondent No. 2, dated 28th January, 1967, published in the Punjab Government Gazette dated 24th February, 1967 (copy Annexure F to the petition). This petition came up for hearing before me sitting singly on May 2,, 1969, when the same was referred to a larger Bench for decision as there was a conflict in the two decisions of this Court, one reported in Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co. Ltd. v. Industrial Tribunal Punjab, (1962) 1 Lab LJ 555 (Punj) and the other reported in Gondhara Transport Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. v. State of Punjab, AIR 1966 Punj 354. In Panipat Woollen and General Mills Company, Ltd., 1962-1 Lab LJ 555 (Punj) the view taken by A. N. Grover, J. (as he then was), was, "Even otherwise there can be no doubt that the order of reference under Section 10(1) is an administrative act of the Government. If there is an industrial dispute, the factual existence of which could not really be in dispute, a fresh determination by the Government of the question of the expediency of making a reference does not amount to a review of a question judicially determined previously and, therefore, a prior order of the Government does not affect the jurisdiction of the Government to exercise the statutory power under Section 10(1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act." In Gondhara Transport Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. AIR 1966 Punj 354 R.S. Narula, J. took a different view and observed thus:-

-

"Considering the scheme, objects and purposes of the relevant provisions of the Act as a whole it appears to be clear that words "at any time" in Section 10(1) of the Act refer to a period which commences with the issue of demand notice or with any other legal steps by which the proceedings are initiated for making a reference to a Labour Court or Tribunal and which period terminates with an order of the appropriate Government either making a reference of declining to make it for any valid reason. Once the Government has arrived at and given out its decision one way or the other, Section 10(1) of the Act ceases to exist for that particular dispute or demand and with such a decision of the Government the words "at any time" contained in Section 10(1) of the Act also cease to operate."

From the report it is clear that the judgment of A. N. Grover, J. in Panipat Woollen and General Mills Co. Ltd., 1962-1 Lab LJ 555 (Punj) was not cited before R. S. Narula, J. In view of this conflict and in order to get an authoritative decision, I thought it desirable and proper to refer the matter to a larger Bench and that is how this matter has been placed before us for decision.

2. Mr. Soni, learned counsel for the petitioners, vehemently contended that under Section 10(1) of the Act, an order of the appropriate Government refusing to make reference at one stage could be reviewed subsequently and there was no legal bar for the exercise of such a power over and again by the State Government. Reliance in support of his contention was placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in the State of Madras v. C. P. Sarathy, AIR 1953 SC 53, two decisions, of this Court in Panipat Woollen and General Mills Co. Ltd., 1962-1 Lab LJ 555 (Punj) (Supra) and Rawalpindi Victory Transport Co. (P) Ltd. v. State of Punjab, (1963): 65 Pun LR 901, two of the Madras High Court in Sri Rama Vilas Service Ltd. v. State of Madras, represented by Secy, to Govt., AIR 1956 Mad 115, and Workmen of Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. v. State Govt. of Madras, AIR 1969 Mad 21, decision of Allahabad High Court in L. H. Sugar Factories and Oil Mills Pvt. Ltd. Pilibhit v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1962 All 70, of Rajasthan High Court in Good Year India Ltd. Jaipur v. Industrial Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur, AIR 1969 Raj 95, and of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Re