1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1774 OF 2009. IN W.P.NO.1835 OF 1999. PETITIONERS: 1. Prabhu son of Sadashiv Chowhan, age about 31 years, Occupation-Nil, resident of Garada (buz), P.O. Manegaon (Bazar), Tahsil and District Bhandara. 2. Vinayak S/o Sadashiv Chouhan, age about 35 years, Occupation-nil, resident of Garada (Buz), P.O. Manegaon (Bazar), Tahsil and District Bhandara. 3. Nilkanth Bapunaji Choudhan, age about 33 years, Occupation-Nil, resident of Garada (Buz), Post Manegaon (Bazar), Tahsil and District Bhandara. 4. Pradeep S/o Govinda Meshram, age about 32 years, Occupation-Nil, resident of Garada (BZ), Post Manegaon (Bazar), Tahsil and District Bhandara. 5. Uttam S/o Raibhan Chouhan, age about 31 yeaqrs, Occupation Nil, resident of Garada (Buz), Post Manegaon (Bazar), Tahsil and District Bhandara. -VERSUS- RESPONDENTS: 1. The Union of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, through its Secretary. 2. Central Silk (Tasar) Board and Training Centre, C.S.D. Complex, B. T. M. Layhout, Modiwala, Bangalore, through its Secretary. 3. Central Silk (Tasar) Board and Training Centre, at Dawadipur (Bazar), Tahsil and District Bhandara-441 904. 4. The Asstt. Labour Commissioner (Central) II, C.G.O. Complex, Seminary Hills, Nagpur. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court s or Judge s appearances, Court's orders or direction Orders and Registrar's orders. 2 Shri A. B. Bambal, Advocate for applicant. Shri Girish Choubey Advocate for Respondents no.1 & 4. Shri A. M. Qazi, Advocate for Respondents 2 & 3. Coram : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI AND F.M. REIS, JJ. Dated : 25th AUGUST, 2009. 1. Heard Advocate Shri Bambal H/F Shri M. W. Harsulkar, Advocate for the petitioners workmen, Advocate Shri Choubey Standing Counsel for Respondents no.1 & 4 and Advocate Shri Qazi for Respondents no.2 & 3. This civil application for grant of early hearing was before us yesterday and we adjourned it today with notice that we may dispose off the writ petition itself finally on merit. 2. The order impugned in Writ Petition is one by which the Respondent no.1 has refused to make the reference of dispute to CGIT. 3. The perusal of the impugned order dated 21-10-1998 shows the reasons given that workmen were doing seasonal work purely as a Casual Labourer, and the management had also 3 not taken any new labourer since 1982. It is also recorded that the workmen did not complete 240 days in any calender year. It is settled that the dispute could not have been adjudicated upon on merits by the Respondent no.1 i.e. the referring authority. 4. In the circumstances, we quash and set aside the order dated 21-10-1998 and direct the respondent no.1 to make a reference to the competent CGIT as early as possible and in any case by 31 st March 2010. 5. Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. 6. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE /Muley/