Hon’ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J.—The amendment application filed by the petitioner has been allowed on 14.8.2018 and necessary incorporation have been made.

2. The dispute in the present petition is with regard to the reference order dated 29.8.2017 which has been amended on 27.3.2018.

3. On the dispute raised by the respondent No. 3, a reference dated 29.8.2017 was made by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, U.P. Noida, District Gautam Buddh Nagar referring the dispute with regard to the termination of services of respondent No. 3 w.e.f 3.3.2015. The said reference reads as under :

^^D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk vius Jfed Jh jkgqy dqekj pkSgku iq= Jh jksgu flag in iSUVªh CokW; dh lsok,a fnukad 03-03-2015 dks lekIr dh x;h FkhA mlds i'pkr i{kksa ds e/; le>kSrk fnukad 18-08-2015 ds vuqlkj leLr ns; leLr miknkuksa@xzsP;qVh dk Hkqxrku pSd }kjk oknh Jfed }kjk LosPNk ls ÁkIr dj fy;k tkuk mfpr rFkk@vFkok oS/kkfud gS\ ;fn ugha] rks Jfed vius lsok;kstdksa ls fdl fgrykHk@vkuqrks"k ¼fjyhQ½ dks ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS ,oa vU; fdl fooj.k lfgrA^^

4. The present petition has been filed with the assertion that on the application moved by respondent No. 3, Conciliation Case No. 146 of 2015 was registered. During conciliation proceedings, in order to avoid litigation, a registered settlement dated 18.8.2015 was arrived between the parties wherein respondent No. 3 had agreed to withdraw his claim in the conciliation case No. 146 of 2015 as also under the Payment of Wages Act namely case No. 271 of 2015. He had further conceded not to file any claim or action against the petitioner-company or the contractor, as the case may be, in respect of the matter arising out of or relating to employment or termination of employment by them.

5. Thus the contention of the petitioner is that under the said agreement, the respondent-workman had entered into a settlement to leave the services of the employer without further protest and Rs. 3,45,376/- was paid to the respondent No. 3. The instant writ petition has been filed with the assertion that after entering into settlement, it was not open for the workman to proceed with the conciliation case. The proceeding of the conciliation case No. 146 of 2015 had, thus, been brought to an end in terms of the settlement vide order dated 18.8.2015.

6. It is contended that after the settlement had been arrived between the parties, it was not open for the State Government to refer the dispute relating to termination with the added question as to whether the settlement of voluntary acceptance of monitory benefits by the workman is valid or not.

7. Submission is that the said reference is not valid within the meaning of Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act’ 1947 (hereinafter referred as Act’ 1947), in as much as, the reference under Section 4-K of the Act’ 1947, can be made only in the event of existence of the industrial dispute on the date of reference or if such a dispute is apprehended between the parties.

8. It is contended that with the settlement of the dispute the workman having given up his claim by signing the agreement on 18.8.2015, no industrial dispute exists on the date of reference. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in National Engineering Industries Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and others, 2000 (1) SCC 371; ANZ Grindlays Bank Ltd. (Now Known As Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank Ltd.) v. Union of India and others, 2005 (12) SCC 738 and of this Court in Hindustan Aeronautics Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2004 (101) FLR 823 and Salora International Ltd. Noida v. Labour Commissioner, U.P. and others, 2007(4) ADJ 620, to submit that the conditions precedent for making reference under Section 2(b) of the Act’ 1947 was not existing on the date of reference dated 29.8.2017.

9. It is noteworthy that the reference was further amended on 27.3.2018 by the Deputy Labour Commissioner in purported exercise of powers under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act (U.P. Amendment No. 1) read with Section 4 o