DEKA, J.- This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ of prohibition restraining the Industrial Tribunal from proceeding with reference No. 20 of 1959 and for a writ of mandamus directing him to proceed with Reference No. 3 of 1959 and for consequent modification of the order of the Industrial Tribunal dated 26-9-59. (2) The facts leading to this application are that there was a reference under Section 10(1)(d) by the State Government of Assam under Notification No. GLR.415/58/12-13 dated 14th August 1958 to Sri Ram Labhaya, Presiding officer Industrial Tribunal, Assam for adjudication of the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No. 4 and the same was numbered as Reference No. 3 of 1959. the Presiding Officer after registration of the same called upon the parties to file written statements and thereafter a date of hearing was fixed for 19th August 1959 which was subsequently put off till 26th September 1959. During the pendency of this reference the Government issued a fresh notification in the Official Gazette bearing No. GLR.415/58/31-32 dated 7th August 1959, by which another reference to the Tribunal was made in respect of the identical dispute and the Government superseded the earlier notification No. GLR.415/58/12-13 of 14th August lass which had been the subject matter of Reference No. 3 of 1959. There was another notification dated 7th August 1959 in the Assam Gazette bearing No. GLR 415/58 whereby another reference was made to the identical Tribunal for adjudication of certain dispute referred to in the Schedule thereto. Consequent on these two notifications the Tribunal registered two other reference cases,-they being. Reference Nos. 20 of 1959 and 21 of 1959 based on the two notifications mentioned above seriatim. The Tribunal asked the parties to submit fresh written statements on the basis of the two references No. 20 and 21 of 1959. The objection raised by the petitioner is that the original reference was superseded by the State Government without any authority of law and they had illegally split up the same reference with some additional issues in, the two references subsequently registered. In this matter we are concerned only with reference No. 20 of 1959. The objection raised by the petitioner is that the original reference was superseded by the State Government without any authority of law and they had illegally split up the same reference with some additional issues in, the two references subsequently registered. In this matter we are concerned only with reference No. 20 of 1959. An objection was raised as to the validity of this reference .by the petitioner before the Industrial Tribunal but the same was negatived and the Industrial Tribunal by its order dated 26th September 1959 directed that the reference based on the earlier notification of 14th August 1958 be superseded and fresh cases registered on the basis of the subsequent notices dated 7th August 1959 as had been referred to earlier. The Industrial Tribunal further observed that the proceeding would be the fresh reference registered on the basis of the last notification and parties were to submit their written statements on the basis thereof. (3) The learned Advocate for the petitioner has places before us the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar v. D. N. Ganguly, AIR 1958 SC 1018 . It has been held in that case that the Industrial Disputes Act does not expressly confer any power on the appropriate Government to cancel or supersede a reference made under Section 10(1), nor could such power be claimed by implication on the strength of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act. On the basis of this decision it has been urged that the State Government had no power to cancel the earlier reference made on the basis of the notification of 14th August 1958. The State counsel appearing in support of the order of the Industrial Tribunal has urged before us that as a matter of fact, no new matter has been introduced in the subsequent reference but only certain amendments had been sought to be made to the earlier reference by a fresh notification subsequently. We think it is desirable that the position of the Government should be clarified as to their jurisdiction in these matters and we think the decision of the Supreme Court is quite emphatic on the point, namely that the Government has no such jurisdiction of superseding the earlier reference as has been done in this case by the notification of the 7th August, 1959. Mr. Mr. Medhi has further drawn our attention to certain observation in an earlier judgment of this Court reported in AIR 1959 Assam 211 Tea Producing Co. of India Ltd. v. Ram Labhaya, Industrial Tribunal, Assam wherein my learned brother considered one of the Madras case South India Estate Labour Relations Organisation v. Madras State, (S) AIR 1955 Mad 45 . There what was attempted was to introduce fresh materials by way of an amendment to the existing reference, and it was considered that it was a mere technicality which did not merit interference by the Court. The Madras case is not material for the purpose of considering as to whether the State Government has the power of superseding the earlier reference, which had been the subject matter of decision in the Supreme Court. Even in the present case if an amendment was sought to be made in the reference, that was altogether a different matter which does not seem to be the purpose of the Government notification. In our opinion therefore, the reference by subsequent Government Notification No.GLR.415/58/31-32 dated 7-8-59 was bad and that notification therefore could not be given effect to. We accordingly direct that the Industrial Tribunal will proceed with Reference No. 3 of 1959 and will not proceed with Reference No. 20 of 1959. The rule is accordingly made absolute but in the circumstances of the case however, we make no order for costs. (4) G. MEHROTRA J.: I agree. GG/Q/D.V.C. Rule made absolute. ----------------------