THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.19513 and 19519 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: The petitioners claim to have been engaged as Mazdoors in the Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. Alleging that they have been retrenched from service, they approached the 1st respondent with a prayer to refer the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal. Through order, dated 22.10.2010, the 1st respondent informed the petitioners that they have not completed 240 days of service during the past 12 calendar months and that they have been engaged through contractor and in that view of the matter, their request cannot be acceded to. Reference was also made to the failure of conciliation. The petitioners feel aggrieved by the said order. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent. The petitioners wanted the 1st respondent to make reference of the industrial dispute to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short ‘the Act’). It is true that the 1st respondent cannot adjudicate the disputes. However, he has to verify as to whether any basic facts for a reference exist at all. Learned counsel for the petitioners supplied a copy of the representation made by the petitioners. The petitioners invoked Section 33 of the Act. At another place, reference was made to Section 33-A of the Act. In the teeth of this, hardly there was any scope for the 1st respondent to make a reference. It is strongly urged on behalf of the petitioners that the effort made by them was to complain that several Mazdoors, who are juniors to them, are being continued, even while they are being retrenched. If the grievance of the petitioners is referable to Section 25-G of the Act, they were under obligation to furnish the necessary particulars. Though the particulars so furnished, cannot be subjected to proof, at the stage of making the reference, the information as such must exist to enable the 1st respondent to form an opinion as to the existence of dispute. Viewed from any angle, the impugned order cannot be found fault with. Therefore, the writ petitions are dismissed. It is however left open to the petitioners to initiate steps by stating the relevant facts and by invoking the relevant provisions. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 23.08.2011 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.19513 and 19519 of 2011 Date: 23.08.2011 JSU