Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is the I.I. Iyyappan Mills (Private) Ltd., Trichur. The 1st respondent is the State of Travancore-Cochin, the 2nd, the Industrial Tribunal, Ernakulam, and the 3rd, the I. I. Iyyappan Mills Workers' Union, Trichur. 2. The order impugned in this petition is Ext. A dated 14-4-1956 which reads as follows: "Whereas Government are of opinion that an Industrial Dispute exists between the Managing Director, I.I. Iyyappan Mills Ltd., Trichur and their workmen represented by the I. I. Iyyappan Mills Workers' Union, Trichur in respect of matters mentioned in the annexure to this order, And whereas the said dispute had been referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Trivandrum, by order L-4 12307/ 55 / DD dated 7-7-1955 and is pending adjudication, And whereas since then an Industrial Tribunal, Ernakulam has been constituted, And whereas in the opinion of Government it is expedient to refer the said industrial dispute for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal, Ernakulam, Now therefore in exercise of the powers conferred by S.19(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (Central Act XIV of 1947) read with the General Clauses Act (Central Act X of 1897) Government hereby withdraw the said industrial dispute from the Industrial Tribunal, Trivandrum and refer the said dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal Ernakulam. Annexure 1. How many festival holidays should be given to the employees of I. I. Iyyappan Mills Ltd., Trichur in an year? 2. Should any additional bonus be paid to the workers for the years 1952-53 over and above what has been paid already and if so what should be the additional bonus. 3. What should be the wages of the workers in the workshop and Foundry sections of the Mills. 4. What medical facilities should be provided for the workers by the management" 3. In Para.10 of the affidavit in support of the petition it is stated: "An identical reference by the Government dated 7-7-55 No. L4-12307/55/DD was challenged by the petitioner in O. P. No. 156/55 of this Hon'ble Court and the copy of the order thereon is to the following effect: 'It is agreed that the Tribunal may be directed: (a). In Para.10 of the affidavit in support of the petition it is stated: "An identical reference by the Government dated 7-7-55 No. L4-12307/55/DD was challenged by the petitioner in O. P. No. 156/55 of this Hon'ble Court and the copy of the order thereon is to the following effect: 'It is agreed that the Tribunal may be directed: (a). to treat issue No. 3 as not arising for decision in the reference made; (b) to deal with issue No.1 and Issue No. 4 only in so far as they relate to the workmen of the Company who were in its employment on the date of the reference to adjudication; and (c) to consider in dealing with issue No. 2 all the contentions of the parties including the contention of the company that the workmen of the Oil Mills, and Foundry and Engineering Works are not entitled to any award of bonus on the ground that the said Oil Mills, and Foundry and Engineering Works were closed the nature and character of the closure and the results that flow therefrom are in dispute prior to the date of the reference to adjudication." 4. The parties before us agree that the adjudication in pursuance of Ext. A may be treated as modified and controlled by the order in O. P. No. 156 of 1955 and that a direction to that effect may be issued. Order accordingly. 5. The only other contention urged before us is that the Government had no right to withdraw the industrial dispute from the Industrial Tribunal, Trivandrum and refer it for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ernakulam, as was done by Ext A. In 1954 I L. L. J. 119 one of the contentions urged by Mr. Daphtary was that the Government concerned had no power under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to withdraw an industrial dispute referred to a tribunal for adjudication and refer it to another tribunal so long as the members of the first Tribunal were available. The Supreme Court negatived the contention in the following words: "His further contention that the Government could not withdraw the dispute referred to the first tribunal so long as the members of the first tribunal were available and could not hand it over to the second tribunal cannot also be sustained." 6. The Supreme Court negatived the contention in the following words: "His further contention that the Government could not withdraw the dispute referred to the first tribunal so long as the members of the first tribunal were available and could not hand it over to the second tribunal cannot also be sustained." 6. In this case counsel for the petitioner was not even in a position to assure us that the Industrial Tribunal, Trivandrum, to which the reference was made in the first instance, was in existence on the date of Ext. A, that is on 1-4-1956. 7. Counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to D. N. Ganguli v. State of Bihar A.I.R. 1956 Patna 449 which according to him supports his contention and to (1957-58) 12 F.J.R. 246, a decision of the Punjab High Court, which it is admitted is against the said contention. 8. In view of what has been stated by the Supreme Court in 1954 I L. L. J. 119, we think it unnecessary to discuss those two decisions in this judgment. 9. We allow the petition in the manner and to the extent indicated in Para.4 above and leave the parties to bear their respective costs.