This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the order of the High Court dismissing the appellant companys writ petition.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated March 12, 1968 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No.
2 Do the words at any time in s. 4 k of the Act have any limitations, or can the Government refer a dispute, for adjudication after the lapse of about six years, as in this case, after the accrual of the cause of the dispute ?
By its order dated March 22, 1965 the Labour Court rejected the reference on the ground that there was numberindustrial dispute, and therefore, the reference was number maintainable.
K. Daphtary, R. N. Banerjee, P. N. Tiwari and 0.
C. Mathur, for the appellant.
301 of 1966.
Respondents I to 3 thereupon filed a writ petition in the High Court which was allowed by a learned Single Judge.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Counsel for the appellant company, in support of the appeal, raised the following points 1 Was it possible for the respondent union to validly espouse the cause of respondent 3 when he was number a member at the date when his service was terminated Even if it was, was there in fact an espousal so as to companyvert his individual dispute into an industrial dispute ?
An appeal against the said order filed by the appellant company was dismissed.
1 and 3.
C. Agarwala, R. K. Garg and S. Chakravarty, for respon dents Nos.
83B/57.
The matter was thereupon taken up by respondent 1 before the Regional Conciliation Officer, Bareilly who registered the case as Case No.
On expiry of that period the probationary period was extended from time to time and ultimately respondent 3 was transferred to the labour office of the companypany.
On the said refusal, respondent 3 filed a writ petition in the High Court for a mandamus.
By about the end of 1962 the respondent union made further representation to the State Government and by its order dated August 28, 1963 the Government made a reference of the dispute regarding the said termination of the service of respondent 3 to the Labour Court for adjudication.
On May 29, 1957, while respondent 3 was still serving his probationary period, the companypany terminated his service.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shelat, J. On May 9, 1956 the appellant company appointed respondent 3 as a foreman on probation for a period of six months.
1914 of 1968.
The High Court dismissed the petition on the ground that the decision of the State Government to refer or number to refer a dispute for adjudication was a matter of its discretion.
