ORDER Hari Swarup, J. - The L. H. Sugar Factory Mazdoor Union has filed this petition challenging an agreement entered into between M/s. L. H. Sugar Factory and the Krantikari Mazdoor Union for reference of the matter in dispute to arbitration and for prohibiting the Regional Conciliation Officer, Bareilly to proceed with the arbitration. The petitioner has also asked for a writ to quash the order of the District Magistrate by which the Regional Conciliation Officer was nominated to arbitrate. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that the Krantikari Mazdoor Union was not a representative body and should not therefore enter into an agreement with the management so as to bind all the workmen. It is however, not necessary to decide this point at this stage as the necessary conditions for continuance of the arbitration have not yet 'come into existence. 3. Section 5-B of the U. P. Indus trial Disputes Act provides for voluntary reference of disputes to arbitration. Under clause (i) where any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended and employer and the workmen agree, the dispute can be referred to an arbitrator specified in the agreement. Clause (iii) provides for a copy of the arbitration agreement to be sent to the State Government, the Conciliation Officer and the Labour Commissioner and further requires that the State Government, within fourteen days from the receipt of such copy shall publish the same in the Official Gazette. Clause (iv) then provides that the arbitrator shall investigate the dispute and submit to the State Government the arbitration award. Section 5-B thus contemplates that the arbitrator shall proceed with the arbitration only after a copy of the agreement has reached the State Government and has been published in the Official Gazette. The purpose of this is obviously to make the agreement known to all the workmen as the award will be binding on all the workmen of the concern. In the supplementary affidavit it was averred that the impugned agreement was neither forwarded to the State Government nor was it published in the Official Gazette. In the counter-affidavit filed by Sri. A. N. Pandey it has been stated that the deponent had no knowledge about the averments regarding the non-forwarding of the copy of the agreement to the State Government and it has further been impliedly admitted that the agreement has not been published in the Official Gazette so far. In the counter-affidavit filed by Sri. A. N. Pandey it has been stated that the deponent had no knowledge about the averments regarding the non-forwarding of the copy of the agreement to the State Government and it has further been impliedly admitted that the agreement has not been published in the Official Gazette so far. It has been asserted that the reason for non-publication is the pendency of the writ petition. So long as the agreement is not published, the arbitrator will have no jurisdiction to proceed with the arbitration. 4. The petitioner has asserted that the Regional Conciliation Officer is proceeding with the arbitration. From a notice issued by the officer, which has been annexed to the petition, it appears that he intends to proceed with the arbitration. As already seen, he has no jurisdiction to proceed unless the agreement is published in the gazette. 5. The petition is accordingly allowed. Let a Writ in the nature of prohibition issue directing the Regional Conciliation Officer, Bareilly, not to proceed with the investigation of the dispute on the basis of the agreement dated 16th April, 1970 entered into between the L. H. Sugar Factory and the Krantikari Mazdoor Union, until the agreement has been published by the State Government in the Official Gazette. In the circumstances of the case, the parties will bear their own costs.