Hon’ble Sabhajeet Yadav, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The order which I propose to pass in the writ petition I need not hear the respondents.

2. By this petition the petitioner has challenged the award of Labour Court dated 31st July, 1993 published in Gazette on 30.11.1993 (Annexure-1 of the writ petition), whereby Labour Court has adjudicated the industrial dispute referred to it and made award in favour of workman.

3. The brief facts leading to the case are that the respondent No. 3 was appointed as bus conductor in U.P. Government Roadways Establishment, Farrukhabad and after creation of U.P. Roadways Corporation the services of respondent No. 3 were placed on deputation with the services of the Corporation. In the year 1975 a departmental inquiry was held against the respondent No. 3 and his services were dispensed with on 21st June, 1976. Against the said order the respondent No. 3 filed appeal before next higher authority, wherein the appellate authority had given one more opportunity to the respondent No. 3 to serve the department Corporation vide order dated 28th July, 1976 on the post of bus conductor by re-appointing him afresh w.e.f. 6.8.1976 from initial stage of his earlier service. But the respondent No. 3 kept quiet for quite long time and after lapse of about 14 years raised industrial dispute before Conciliation Board with regard to termination of his services vide order dated 21.6.1976 passed by Assistant Regional Manager and his subsequent re-appointment w.e.f. 6.8.1976 vide order dated 28th July, 1976 passed by the appellate authority. The matter could not be settled before the Conciliation Board and it was sent to the State Government. Thereupon the State Government had referred the industrial dispute under Section 4K of U.P. Industrial Dispute Act 1947 for adjudication before the Labour Court vide reference order dated 14.11.1990. The reference reads as under :

“Keya Sewa Yojako Dawara apne karmchari Tale Singh parichalak S/o Yaun Pal Singh ko aadesh denank 6.8.76 dawara vikhandit sewa denank (21.1.76 se 6.8.76) tak ke tartamayata varisdhata tatha puri sewa ke samast hit labh na diya jana anuchit awam vadhanik hai? Yadi han, to sambandhit akidari kaya hit labh/upsham pane ka adikari hai, tadha kis anya vivran sahit?”

4. It is not in dispute that before the Labour Court the parties had adduced their evidence and the Labour Court had made award in favour of respondent workman vide impugned award dated 31st July, 1993 published on 30.11.1993, whereby the interruption in the services of the respondent No. 3 from the date of his termination till the date of his re-appointment was directed to be ignored and the aforesaid period was to be counted towards his length of service, resulting which he was treated to be in continuous service, without any interruption in his service for the purposes of all benefits in service including seniority and other consequential benefits. It is against the aforesaid award of the Labour Court the petitioner U.P. State Corporation has filed the instant writ petition challenging the same, inter alia, on the ground that after lapse of 14 years from the date of re-appointment of respondent No. 3 there existed no industrial dispute to be referred by the State Government before Labour Court so as to enable the Labour Court to adjudicate the same and that in given facts and circumstances of the case the reference was bad, therefore, award made by the Labour Court without existence of any industrial dispute is wholly without jurisdiction and nonest, as such nullity. In support of the case of the petitioner learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in The Nedungadi Bank Ltd. v. K.P. Madhavan Kutty and others, JT 2000 (1) SC 388 and two decisions of this Court rendered in Writ Petition No. 34947 of 2002, U.P.S.R.T.C. v. Anil Kumar and others decided on 16.09.2008 and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15435 of 1994 Regional