1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1627 OF 2010 (Smt. Sunita Mahadeo Athawale vs. The Government of India & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. JULY 20, 2010. Heard finally by consent of Shri Marpakwar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Harode, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 & 3 and Shri Anoop Parihar, learned AGP for respondents No. 1 and 4. Shri Marpakwar, learned counsel points out that the petitioner had sought re-employment and she moved Conciliation Officer only for that purpose vide Application No.ALCN-I/8(20)/2008-ID. That application has been erroneously rejected by holding that no dispute survives and there is already an adjudication. According to him, the provisions of Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, entitled employee to re-employment and on each occasion, when work becomes available and is not provided to the petitioner, cause of action arises. The earlier adjudication was in relation to wrongful retrenchment and the petitioner is not seeking any adjudication in that respect. Shri Harode, learned counsel states that there is already a direction to consider the claim of the 2 petitioner sympathetically and hence as and when work is available, the claim of the petitioner will be considered. He further states that the respondents have not resorted to any fresh recruitment and some work has been provided only on compassionate ground. His contention is, the impugned order dated 17.07.2009, therefore, does not call for any interference. It is apparent that the petitioner is trying to ventilate her grievance in the light of provisions of Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act. The facts also show that work has been provided to some other persons and not to the petitioner. The reasons for so doing cannot be adjudicated by Respondent No. 1 or 4. It is, therefore, apparent that refusal to make reference by Respondent No. 1 is unsustainable. The failure report submitted by Respondent No. 4 ought to have been accepted and reference should have been made. In the circumstances, writ petition is allowed. Respondent No.1 is directed to make reference to appropriate C.G.I.T. in accordance with law within a period of three months of receipt of this order by it. The order dated 17.07.2009 passed by Respondent No. 1 is quashed and set aside. Writ Petition is disposed of. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.