The State Government has authority to refer disputes involving non-journalist employees under the Industrial Disputes Act, validating such references under Section 4K of the State Act.

JUDGMENT

Piyush Agrawal, J.

Heard Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Chandra Bhan Gupta for the petitioner and Mr. Man Mohan Singh for the respondents.

2. The issue involved in all the writ petitions is identical as such the writ petitions are being decided by a common order treating Writ C No. 39505 of 2023 as leading case.

3. By means of present petitions, the petitioner is seeking a relief to quash the entire proceedings of reference cases pending before respondent no. 3.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondents herein are not Journalist however they are working with the petitioner-institution on different posts and their services are governed by the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (herein after referred to as 'the Act of 1955'), which is a Central Act / special Act and is applicable upon newspaper establishment. He submitted that respondents were well aware about the said fact, therefore, they moved applications wherein it has been referred that in terms of Section 16 of UP Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1956 as well as under Section 2A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, they seek intervention of the authorities for the relief against alleged illegal termination. He further submitted that in pursuance of that respondents themselves have made a request under the Industrial Disputes Act i.e. Central Act and not upon the UP Industrial Dispute Act for making a reference under Section 10 (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. He further submitted that on the identical set of facts, various references have been made under Section 10 (2) of Industrial Disputes Act, copies of which have been filed along with the writ petitions. He further submitted that since the references under Section 4 K of UP Industrial Disputes Act is not applicable, therefore, the present references are bad and once the references are bad, the entire proceedings pending before the Labour Court is vitiated.

5. In support of his claim, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on an identical set of fact a bunch of writ petitions leading case number Writ C No. 27117 of 2023 have been entertained by this Court in which interim order dated 28.8.2023 was granted in favour of the petitioner.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-employees submitted that references are in accordance with law. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgement of this Court passed in Writ C No. 37024 of 2012 (Ms/ Jagran Prakashan Limited and another v. State of Presiding Officer Labour Court and others) decided on 4.8.2020 and submitted that the references have been filed in accordance with law. He further submitted that similar arguments were raised by the petitioner therein before this Court in the aforesaid writ petition, which has been turned down by this Court in para no. 38 of the judgement. He further submitted that at this stage, the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge reference order and same could only be challenged after passing the award, if the petitioner will be aggrieved. He further relied upon the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of M/s Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. v. Government of India and another, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 12602 of 2006, decided on 24.9.2008. He further submitted that at the time of making reference, the order does not effect the right of the parties. He prays for dismissal of this