Hon’ble B. Amit Sthalekar, J.—This writ petition was taken up for arguments yesterday on 24.4.2012 in the revised list. Nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 3. However, due to paucity of time the arguments could not be concluded, therefore, the matter has been posted for today. Today, again nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 3. Notices were issued to the respondent No. 3 on 25.8.1998 but till date no counter-affidavit has been filed in this case. In the circumstances, the Court is left with no option except to proceed to hear the matter in the absence of respondent No. 3.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 6.5.1998 by which a second reference has been made by the Dy. Labour Commissioner, Moradabad referring a dispute regarding termination of the respondent No. 3 to the Labour Court, Bareilly.

3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that an industrial dispute was raised by the respondent No. 3 by filing an application under section 2-A of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which was registered as CP case No. 111 of 1996. A reference was made by the Dy. Labour Commissioner, Moradabad referring the dispute to the Labour Court Bareilly by his order dated 13.2.1997 and the question referred to the Labour Court is as follows:

“KYA SEWAYOJAKO DWARA UNKE SHRAMIK SHREE CHAMAN SINGH PUTRA SHRI JAGRAM SINGH ‘OPERATOR’ KI SEWAYE DINANK 30.6.1996 KO SAMAPT KIYA JANA UCHIT AVAM VAIDHANIK HAIN. YADI NAHI TO KARAMCHARI KYA HITLABH PANE KA ADHIKARI HAIN.”

4. Before the Labour Court an objection was filed by the petitioner-employer, inter alia, on the ground that as on 30.6.1996 the workman, respondent No. 3 had no cause of action for raising the industrial dispute. The second objection was that the reference has not been properly framed and that it should have been framed as follows:

“KYA SHREE CHAMAN SINGH PUTRA SHREE JAG RAM SINGH NE GAVAOHN KO KARAYA VA DHAMKAYA THA JISKE FALSWAROOP JAANCH PURI KARNA SMAHAV NAHEEN THA. PARINAM SWAROOP SHRAMIK KI SEVAYEN PATRA DINANK 29.6.1996 KE DWARA SMAPTA KIYA JANA UCHIT VA VAIDHANIK HAI ATHAVA NAHEEN? YADI NAHEEN TO KARMCHARI KYA HIT LABH PANE KA ADHIKARI HAI.”

5. The Labour Court took cognizance of the reference and it is informed by Shri Nigam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the reference was decided against the workman by award dated 20.5.2000. The respondent No. 3, workman after raising the industrial dispute never appeared before the Labour Court and therefore, the award was given ex-parte.

The award of the Labour Court under the first reference order dated 13.2.1997 was still pending and during the pendency of the first reference order the Dy. Labour Commissioner, Moradabad passed another reference order dated 6.5.1998 which reads as follows:

“KYA SEWAYOJAKO DWARA UNKE SHRAMIK SHRI CHAMAN SINGH PUTRA SHRI JAGRAM SINGH ‘MAINTENANCE TECHNICIAN’ KI SEWAYEIN DINANK 29.6.1996 SE SAMAPT KIYA JANA UCHIT/VAIDHANIK HAIN. YADI NAHI TO KARAMCHARI KYA HITLABH PANE KA ADHIKARI HAIN.”

6. I have heard, Shri Shakti Nigam, learned counsel for the petitoiner. The order is being dictated in open Court.

7. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that when the first reference order had already been made and was under consideration before the Labour Court, Bareilly, second reference order could not have been made.

8. At the time of admission of the writ petition, this Court vide order dated 25.8.1998 directed that the dispute referred in the earlier reference order dated 13.2.1997 shall be heard and decided by the Labour Court, Bareilly. So far as the second reference vide order dated 6.5.1998 was concerned, the same was stayed by this Court.

9. A perusal of the first reference order dated 13.2.1997 will show that the question referred by the Dy. Labour Commissioner, Moradabad for adjudication was as to whether the termination of services of the respondent No. 3, working as operator under the petitio