899 of 1957 challenging its validity principally on the ground that there was numberindustrial dispute within the companytemplation of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Soon after the reference the appellant presented a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court, C.W. No.
Though principally in this writ petition the power of the State Government to enforce the award was questioned, challenge to the order of reference was also reiterated.
Appeals from the judgment and decree dated May 7, 1964 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeals Nos.
B. Agarwala and O. P. Rana, for respondent No.
2 in C.A. No.
The workers were asked to report personally, latest by August 26, 1956, to show their willingness to work.
As interim, stay of the proceedings was declined, the proceedings before the adjudicator companytinued and on December 31, 1957 the adjudicator gave his award.
3 in A. No.
The relevant facts may first be briefly stated.
171 6 of 1968 and respondent No.
In June 1956 there was a strike in the glass factory of the appellant, M s. Munshi Lal Beni Ram Glass Works, at Ferozabad.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
This gave rise to a companytroversy between Lal Khan and the employers with the result that the State Government purporting to act under ss.
77 and 118 of 1960.
1707 of 1968 .
In August 1956 a settlement was reached with the workers and it became possible to reassume operations from August 31, 1956.
1706 of 1968 and respondent No.
1706 and 1707 of 1968.
This was followed by an order of the State Government dated January 28, 1958 enforcing the award under ss.
In his place one Jang Jit was thereupon employed and intimation of this fact duly sent to Lal Khan.
1 in C.A. No.
As a result the factory was closed down for some time.
1025 of 1958 .
3, 4 and 8 of U.P. Indus trial Disputes Act referred the following dispute to the Adjudicator Whether the employers have wrongly and or un justifiably refused employed to Shri Lal Khan with effect from 28/29th August, 1957 ?
1707 of 1968 .
According to the appellant, Lal Khan, one of the workers, failed to register his willingness to work before the appointed day, and indeed he did number care to report in spite of a messenger having been sent to him requiring his attendance.
P. Goyal and S. N. Singh, for respondent No.
1 in A. No.
The award and the order of the State Government were also challenged by the appellant by means of a writ petition in the High Court C.W. No.
N. Dikshit, for the appellant in both the appeals .
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dua, J. In these two appeals on certificate of fitness, challenge is directed against the view taken by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court on appeal in disagreement with that of a learned Single Judge of that Court on the interpretation of s. 16 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act of 1957 and s. 6A of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act of 1947.
If so, to what relief is he entitled ?
3 and 6 2 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
