// 4) IN THE HIGH COURT OF YAPNATAK AT BNGALORE Dated this the 5th Day of June 1998 BEFORE THE HCN BLE MR. JUSTICE V P. MC HAN KUMAR WPIT PETITION NO.16206/1998 BEThEEN: Sri. R,V, Dhillal, s/o Vishnu B, chillal, aged about 39 years, 0cc: Nil, r/o, Hongal chawl, Sadasivanagar, Cud Hubli, Djst: Dharwjd, ...PETTTIONER (By Sri. V,S. Shastri. Mv.) 1. The State of Karnataka, rep. by Its Secretary to Govt., Irrigation Dept., M.S, building, Bangalore. 2. The Asst, Executive Engineer, Majaprabha Right Bank Canal Construction Sub—division, No.11, Byahatti, Taluka Hubli, Dist. Dharwad, 3, Labour Off ioer/Assiqtant Labour rnmissioner and Reconciliation Officer, Sicdeswara Building, Vidyanaga, Hubl i, Dist: Dharwad, , . RESPONDENTS (By Sri, T,P, NamEir, AGA) A — — This Writ Pettion is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to cuash vide Annex-C dt. 6—4—88 by R-3 and etc. This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the Court made the following:— OP D ER rnnexureC is impugned in this prcceedincis. I have heard learned Govt. Advocate s well The tird respondent as per Annexure—C order refused to refer the dispute holding that Irrigation Department is riot an incustry I do not think that Annexure—C is sustainable, If the third resoondent feels that dispute do not exist he cannot settle the same, the only remedy oper is to submit a failure renort to the Government and the Government has to pass aprirooriate orders, as to whether the dispute should be referred. I therefore, quash Annexure—C orde and direct the third respondent to act in accordance with Section 10 of te Industrial Disputes Act and —3— pass appropriate orders as regards ref ering the dispute if it is not capable of being conciliated, to the apPropriate court. Writ Petition disposed of. JUDGE , , 7 C- ksp/ bnv/