The two main contentions which were urged before us by the learned Counsel for the appellant were: (1) that the Gaya Sugar Mills Ltd., Guraru had been taken into liquidation and respondent No. 3 had been appointed the liquidator thereof; that the reference made by the State Government to the Industrial Tribunal on December 2, 1954, involved considerable financial burden on the said Mills and the State Government ought to have obtained the sanction of the Court under section 171 of the Indian Companies Act before making a reference of the industrial disputes to the Industrial Tribunal under section 10(1) of the , qua the said Mills and that not having been done, the reference was bad in law and there was no question of the applicability of either section 33 or section 33A of the Act, and (2) that on a true construction of sections 33 and 33A of the Act, the " employer " therein mentioned could only be the " employer " concerned in the industrial dispute which was the subject matter of reference, that the applicant had taken the lease of the said: 263 sugar Mills on December 6, 1954, 4 days after the date of reference made by the State Government under, section 10(1) of the Act, and that therefore the applicant was not an " employer " within the meaning of the terms as used in section 33 or section 33A of the Act, and even if the allegations made by the applicants in Miscellaneous Cases Nos. 26 and 27 of 1955 before respondent No. 1 were correct, it was not necessary for the applicant to have obtained the permission of the Industrial Tribunal under a. 33 of the Act, and therefore the said applications under section 33A of the Act, filed by res pondents 4 to 23 were not maintainable.