Hon’ble Rajeev Misra, J.—Challenge in this special appeal is to the judgement and order dated 19.7.2011, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the learned Single Judge has not only dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner appellant but has also imposed an exemplary cost of Rs. 21 lacs upon the petitioner-appellant.

2. We have heard Mr. Abhishek Tripathi, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Vrindavan Mishra, the learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant, the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. Sudhanshu Narain, the learned counsel representing the respondent No. 5.

3. The petitioner-appellant filed C.M.W.P. No. 1794 of 1993 (Kshetriya Sri Gandhi Ashram v. State of U.P. and others) claiming the following reliefs :

“(a) a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorai quashing the impugned order of reference dated 2.5.1993 passed by the respondent No. 2 (Annexure 1 to the petition)

(b) a writ or direction in the nature of writ of prohibition against Labour Court, Gorakhpur, respondent No. 4 commanding the respondent No. 4 not to proceed further in Adjudication Case No. 72 of 1993 pursuant to impugned order of reference

(c) any other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case

(d) award cost of the petition to be paid to the petitioner.”

4. The aforesaid writ petition came up for admission on 12.12.1995 before a learned Single Judge and the following interim order was passed :

“Notice on behalf of respondent No. 1 to 4 has been accepted by the learned Standing Counsel. The petitioner is directed to service respondent No. 5 by Dasti notice as also by registered post. Steps will be taken within seven days. The petitioner will also file an affidavit of service within two weeks thereafter. The respondents are directed to file counter-affidavit within three weeks.

List for admission after six weeks.

In the meantime, the proceedings before the labour Court in adjudication case No. 72 of 1993 shall continue but final orders shall not be passed until further orders of this Court.”

5. Subsequent to the order dated 12.12.1995, passed by the writ Court, no counter-affidavit was filed by the State respondents i.e. the respondent Nos. 1to 4 in the writ petition, even when the impugned order dated 2.5.1993 was passed by the respondent No. 2 the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Anubhag-I, Kanpur. A counter-affidavit was filed by the respondent No. 5, the Union of the workmen supporting the impugned order dated 2.5.1993 to which the petitioner-appellant had filed his rejoinder-affidavit.

6. From the pleadings raised in the writ petition, it transpires that the writ petition was filed, challenging the order dated 2.5.1993, passed by the respondent No. 2 the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Anubhag-I, Kanpur, whereby, a reference was made to the Labour Court, Gorakhpur for adjudication of an alleged industrial dispute pertaining to 48 workmen, in terms of Section 4K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

7. The challenge to the aforesaid order was laid by the petitioner-appellant primarily on the ground that earlier also the Additional Labour Commissioner, U.P. Kanpur, vide order dated 20.6.1991 had declined to make a reference in terms of Section 4K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. A perusal of the said order which is on the record of the present Special Appeal at page 175 of the paper book, will go to show that the reference was declined by the State Government on the ground of undue and excessive delay. It is the case of the petitioner-appellant that the order dated 20.6.1991 was neither challenged by the respondent No. 5 i.e. the Union of the Workmen nor by any of the individual workmen. As such, the same was allowed to become final. The State Government without considering the aforesaid, and also the fact that the services of the 48 workmen came to an end in the year 1981 could not by any stretch of