IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2524 OF 1993. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union. ... Petitioner. versus Union of India & Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. N.M. Ganguli, Advocate for Petitioner. Mrs. S.V. Bharocha, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 & 2. Mr. R.N. Salgaonkar i/b. Salgaonkar & Co., Advocate for Respondent No.3. CORAM : S.B. MHASE AND A.A. KUMBHKONI, JJ. DATE : 11th JUNE, 2008. P.C. Heard Mr. Ganguli, learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the order/ communication dated 25th August 1993 and 1st September 1993, issued by the Desk Officer, IR (Miscellaneous) from the office of the Government of India, Ministry of Labour. 2. Before we deal with the matter, we make it clear that initially, the petitioner – Union had represented 24 employees, however out of these 24 employees, 18 employees have settled the dispute with the employer outside the court and one has been re- employed. Therefore, today the Union represents only 5 persons. These 5 persons are :- Shri Dilip Keni at serial no.1, Shri Sunil Arwari at serial no.2, Shri D.B. Bhatt at serial no.24, Shri Benjamin at serial no.27 & Shri P.S. Kadam at serial no.23 (at Exhibit 'A' to the petition). So far as rest of the employees are concerned, they have settled the matter as per the statement made by the employer. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute this petition. This petition consequently, stands disposed of to that extent. 2. The petitioner is a Union of the workers, working with the respondent no.3, 4 and 5. The retrenchment notice has been given to them pronouncing their compensation in respect of which dispute, was raised by the Union. After the conciliation officer has considered the grievances under section 12, he has given a report to the Central Government that the conciliation has failed. After having considered the report of the conciliation officer, the Government of India has decided not to make any reference. Hence, this petition. 3. The reason for not making a reference is that it is reported that the employer fully complied with the Industrial Disputes Act before retrenching the workers. The other reason assigned is that it is reported that similar dispute raised by recognized union, earlier was withdrawn. 4. By the first reason, the Central Government itself has adjudicated the matter whether there is compliance or non- compliance under section 35 or any other section of the Industrial Disputes Act when employees in issue were retrenched. The matter is to be decided by the industrial court when the reference will be made in this respect and therefore, the said reason is bad and illegal. 5. So far as withdrawal of the earlier case is concerned, what is pertinent to note is that there is no reference to the dispute number and particulars as to which court allowed to withdraw the said dispute, etc. are lacking. Apart from that, it is not clear as to which issue the union had taken and whether the conciliation officer has considered it. The Government has to find out whether there is in existence any industrial dispute and if the same dispute is not already decided and adjudicated, the Government is under adjudication to make a reference to the industrial court. 6. Therefore, we find that the impugned order dated 25th August 1993 / 1st August 1993 is bad and illegal, we quash and set aside the order. However, we have observed that dispute survives in respect of only aforesaid 5 employees. The Government is hereby directed to consider the case after failure report under section 12(5) for making reference in respect of only aforesaid 5 employees and represented by the petitioner – Union. Therefore, we remit back the matter to the Union of India. The Union of India shall take appropriate decision within a period of 6 weeks from today, by giving reasons. (A.A. Kumbhkoni, J.) (S.B. Mhase, J.)