Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. This writ petition has been filed on account of refusal by the respondents to refer the dispute for adjudication in exercise of is powers under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner has challenged the validity and correctness of the order dated 17.1.2001 by which the reference to industrial dispute has been refused by respondent No. 2.

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that Kunji Lal, Dev Raj, Kishori Lal, Raj Kumar, Gopi and Mickel were working as Monthly Rated Casual Labour (M.R.C.L.)/Substitute under the Carriage and Wagon Department of respondent No. 3 at Jhansi. They are said to be the members of the petitioner-Union. The Union claims that the aforesaid persons had worked 120 days and have acquired temporary status as M.R.C.L. They were paid as regular wagers and facilities of pass and P.T.Os. were also granted to them. They were sent from one place to another on temporary duty by way of movement order and all the aforesaid persons have got a right to continue in the employment of respondent No. 3. However, the aforesaid persons were retrenched w.e.f. 31