Hon’ble Devendra Kumar Arora, J.—Heard Sri Amit Bose, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Sri Shivam Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner challenges the award dated 11.8.2010 passed by the Labour Court, U.P., Lucknow in Adjudication Case No. 58 of 2006 between the Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Mahmoodabad, district Sitapur and the petitioner whereby the reference of industrial dispute between the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 regarding the validity of the order of dismissal from service dated 14.12.1999 passed by the General Manager, Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Mahmoodabad, district Sitapur has been returned unanswered on the ground that the reference order was without jurisdiction in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. v. Additional Labour Commissioner, 2007 (11) SCC 756, wherein it is said to have been held that all the disputes relating to employees of Cooperative Societies in the State of U.P. cannot be heard and decided by Labour Courts and Industrial Disputes Tribunals constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act and it is only the authorities constituted under U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, which can consider and decide such disputes. The petitioner also challenged the order dated 7.9.2010 of Labour Court, Lucknow whereby application for recall of impugned award has been rejected.

3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner who was a Senior Cane Development Inspector of Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Mahmoodabad, district Sitapur (here-in-after referred to as the “Respondent-Mill”) was issued charge-sheet on 27.5.1999 containing three charges. The petitioner submitted his reply and thereafter without holding proper enquiry the petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 14.12.1999. The petitioner challenged the order of dismissal before this Court by means of Writ Petition No. 519 (S/S) of 2000, Rama Shankar Vaish v. Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., Sitapur and another. During pendency of the said writ petition before this Court, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. v. Shatrughan Nishad and others, 2003 (8) SCC 639, came to the conclusion that the Respondent-Mill was not covered under the definition of term ‘State’ as defined in Article 12 of the Constitution of India, as such, no writ petition was maintainable against the Respondent-Mill under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. At the same time, the Hon’ble Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the service disputes raised in the writ petitions giving rise to the aforesaid judgment involved disputed questions of facts, which will be decided by the forum constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, as such, while allowing the appeal the Hon’ble Supreme Court relegated the parties to the aforesaid case to raise industrial disputes for adjudication by the Courts constituted under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This Court while appreciating the preliminary objections of the Respondent-Mill and taking into consideration the judgment of General Manager, Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. v. Shatrughan Nishad and others (supra) dismissed the writ petition vide judgment and order dated 10.1.2006 with the observation that if any reference is moved by the petitioner, the State Government will refer the matter in accordance with the provisions of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act within three months and the Labour Court was directed to decide the same within a period of two years. In pursuance to the aforesaid judgment and order, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute with regard to the order of dismissal from service passed against him under Section 2-A of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act on 4.2.2006 and the State Government vide Government Order dated 17.5.2006 made reference t