The State Government has the power to make a reference for adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal if it has sufficient material to form an opinion about the existence of an industrial dispute.

PALOK BASU, J.

( 1 ) IN this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the Order No. 7012-17 (Shra As)/36-Shram (1) Swatah Sandarbh 2 (27)/92 (Ghaziabad) dated September 5, 1992 passed by the State of U. P. making the following reference for adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal (V) Meerut:matter of dispute

"whether the act of the employers concerning 241 workers named in the annexure in declaring lock-out from May 10, 1992 was unjustified and/or illegal? If yes, men to what relief or order are those workers entitled to and with what other benefits?

( 2 ) IT may be mentioned here that receiving the aforesaid Reference the Industrial Tribunal concerned registered it as Adjudication case No. 138 of 1992 and commenced proceedings in which the petitioner and the opposite party No. 3 namely, All India Engineering and General mazdoor Union were shown as parties. On receiving notice, the petitioner has rushed to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the form of the present writ petition challenging the said reference which has been made under Section 4-K of U. P. Industrial tribunal Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the Act.

( 3 ) SRI J. N. Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Rakesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner have been heard at length in support of this writ petition. Sri K. P. Agrawal has espoused the cause of the Union while Sri S. P. Maurya has argued the matter on behalf of the state of U. P. , though no counter affidavit was filed by the State.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel has advanced two arguments in support of this writ petition challenging the reference. First, the reference is bad in law as also on facts because the said reference is colourable exercise of power inasmuch as the preceding strike by the workers in the factory has not been referred to the Tribunal for adjudication and, therefore, the petitioner will suffer irreparably if the reference is permitted to go on as its. Second, there was no material before the state Government on the basis of which it could form opinion about the existence of industrial dispute and, therefore it had no right to refer the same for adjudication.

( 5 ) APART from some case laws cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, reliance was also placed on the provisions contained in Sections 6-T (2) and 6-S of the Act. On behalf of the respondents it was said that in view of the facts involved in the present case the State had ample material before it to refer the matter for adjudication before the Tribunal and the language of reference is not at all such as to debar the petitioner from raising me question of strike by the workers if they want to do so by way of defence.

( 6 ) THE undisputed relevant dates relating to the different events are as follows:

(1 ). May 16, 1992 workers resorted to strike. (2 ). May 18, 1992 lock-out declared by Management (Petitioner) (3 ). August 5, 1992 announcement regarding the closure of the Mill (4 ). August 6, 1992 Mill was actually closed down. (5 ). August 13, 1992 State Govt. passed an order under Section 3-A of the Act prohibiting lock-out for a period of 90 days. (6 ). September 5, 1992 Reference to the Tribunal as noted above.

( 7 ) ON the own showing of the parties the State Government was having material before it sufficient to pass an order under Section 3 of the Act prohibiting lock-out for a period of 90 days. Therefore, there was already enough material before the State Government that an industrial dispute was pending between the employers and the workmen. It may be noted that section 2 (1) of the Act defines "industrial dispute" meaning any dispute or difference between employers and the workmen connected with the employment or conditions of labour of any person. Therefore, when the State Government had taken steps to pass the orders under Section 3-A of the Act it was already seized of the matter and had material before it regarding the impending industrial dispute in the factory of the p