Hon’ble Saumitra Dayal Singh, J.—This writ petition has been filed seeking following relief :

(i) to issue a writ of certiorari, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 15.12.2016 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) and the order dated 25.6.2014 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No. 2.

(ii) to issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 2 to send his report in the matter of the petitioner to the State Government and further for direction to the State Government to refer the matter to the proper forum expeditiously.

2. Affidavits have been exchanged in this matter. With consent of parties, this writ petition is being finally disposed of at this stage.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed on a post of ECG technician at Santosh Medical College, Ghaziabad in 1997 and his services were terminated with effect from 10.10.2013 after conclusion of some departmental inquiry proceedings.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that on 21.10.2013 he had made an application claiming dismissal under Section 2-A of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) which came to be registered as Conciliation Proceeding Case No. 195 of 2013.

5. It appears from the record that in the aforesaid proceedings before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Ghaziabad both sides workmen and employer were heard but the matter remained pending and the Conciliation Officer eventually dropped the conciliation proceedings on 25.6.2014. At that stage petitioner had filed an application to reconsider the reconciliation application.

6. This application was directed to be decided within six months by an order passed in Writ Petition No. 3361 of 2016.

7. It is the case of the petitioner that the later application also remained pending despite specific directions issued by this Court which led petitioner to file a civil contempt application.

8. Subsequently, on 15.12.2016 the Deputy Labour Commissioner rejected the application of the petitioner to reconsider the matter of conciliation. However, he has not submitted his report in this regard to the State Government.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits having rejected petitioner’s application the Deputy Labour Commissioner has not filed his report which when filed may become the starting point for consideration of the case under Section 4K of the Act with respect to making of a reference of an industrial dispute by the State Government. He therefore prays for a mandamus to the said Deputy Labour Commissioner to submit his report.

10. Sri Sunil Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for Santosh University has filed counter-affidavit and raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner has statutory remedy before the Labour Commissioner. For this purpose he relies on the a notification dated 19.1.1972 which reads as under :

“(2) where a conciliation officer refuses to entertain in application he shall record in writing his reason for such refusal and communicate them to the application who may within one month of the receipt there of represent Deputy Labour Commissioner (Industrial Relation) at Kanpur, the concerned Regional Deputy Labour Commissioner at Kanpur, Allahabad & Meerut whose decision in the matter shall be final.”

11. He also relies on judgment of the Supreme Court Workmen v. I.I.T.I. Cycles of India Ltd. and others, 1995 Supp (2) SCC 733, wherein the Supreme Court has held that it is not obligatory on the State Government to make a reference of the dispute in each and every case and that it is to be made keeping in mind the objective of industrial peace and smooth industrial relations, etc. He has also relied on a judgment of Supreme Court Secretary, India Tea Association v. Ajit Kumar Barat and others, (2000) 3 SCC 93 (para 7) which reads as below :

“The law on the point may briefly be summarised as follows:

1. The appropriate Government