JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, J. - This is an application by the employer asking for quashing of two orders of the Labour Court at Bhubaneswar being dated 8-2-1979 (Annexure 16) and dated 11-5-1979 (Annexure 18). The State Government in purported exercise of powers u/s 12(5) read with Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 (hereafter referred to as the "Act" had referred the following dispute for adjudication by the Labour Court: Whether the termination of service of Sri Jagannath Mishra by the management of M/s. Howrah Motor Company Private Ltd., Cuttack with effect from 31-1-74 is legal and/or justified? If not to what relief Sri Mishra is entitled? After both the parties filed their written statement, five issues were framed by the Labour Court of which the two relevant ones for this writ application are: (i) whether this Court had territorial jurisdiction to decide this case? and (ii) whether the reference is without jurisdiction? These issues arose in the following background: 2. The employer is a public limited company with its registered as also head office at Calcutta and branches at several places in India including one at Cuttack. The workman opposite party No. 3 was appointed by the Cuttack branch as a Mechanic in June, 1950. In March, 1972, he was transferred on promotion to the Siliguri branch in West Bengal by the head office at Calcutta. The workman applied to the Labour Court u/s 33C(2) of the Act for certain reliefs and asked for stay of operation of the order of transfer. When the order of stay was not granted, the workman was relieved from the Cuttack branch on 23-3-1972. In April, 1972, he moved the Industrial Tribunal u/s 33A of the Act against the order of transfer. On 14th of April, 1973, the Tribunal held that the order of transfer was valid. Petitioner moved this Court in a writ application being O.J.C. No. 739 of 1973 for quashing the order of the Tribunal and in April, 1975, the writ application too was dismissed. During the pendency of the writ application, on 12-11-1973 the workman was directed to join at the new station but in December, 1973, he had replied that he should be given posting at Cuttack. In January, 1974 his services were terminated by the head office by order under Annexure 10. During the pendency of the writ application, on 12-11-1973 the workman was directed to join at the new station but in December, 1973, he had replied that he should be given posting at Cuttack. In January, 1974 his services were terminated by the head office by order under Annexure 10. In July, 1975, petitioner offered to join at Siliguri and was informed that after termination of his service, there was no scope for reporting to duty at Siliguri. Thereupon at the instance of the workman a conciliation proceeding was taken up by the local conciliation officer and on furnishing of failure report, the State Government referred the dispute as indicated above for adjudication by the Labour Court. 3. In this background, the employer raised an objection before the Labour Court that the reference was not competent and, therefore, the proceeding was not maintainable. On 8-2-1979, the Labour Court held: ...It is contended on behalf of the first party that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this reference on the grounds that after the order of transfer of the workman from Orissa to Siliguri, he is no more an workman in Orissa. That in the meantime the workman was relieved from duty after taking his advance T.A. He also took leave for preparing his transit for transfer from Cuttack to Siliguri. He had made due correspondence with the head office at Calcutta. But the facts remain that he got his appointment as a mechanic by the Branch Manager, Cuttack. He has never joined at Siliguri branch as yet,. After his relief from Cuttack and before his joining at Siliguri his services were terminated. At the same time, M/s. Howrah Motor Company Private Ltd., has got different branches in that States outside Orissa. Cause of action first arose in Orissa when he entered in service in 1950 by the order of appointment by Branch Manager, Cuttack. Therefore, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this reference.... Thereupon petitioner applied for review of the order and on 11-5-1979 the Labour Court rejected the application by holding that the reference was maintainable an it had jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the dispute. 4. "Appropriate Government" has been defined in Section 2(a) of the Act to mean in all cases excepting the named items in Clause (i), the State Government. 4. "Appropriate Government" has been defined in Section 2(a) of the Act to mean in all cases excepting the named items in Clause (i), the State Government. Under Sections 10(1) and 12(5) which provide the mechanism of referring a dispute for adjudication, power has been vested in the appropriate Government to make the reference. In the instant case, it is the employer's stand that the dispute relating to termination of the workman's service did not arise within the State of Orissa inasmuch as the workman's service within the State had ceased on account of his transfer to Siliguri and relief from the post. The order of termination come from the head office at Calcutta and, therefore, with reference to a dispute on the question of termination of service, no part of the cause of action arose within the State or Orissa. Thus, the Government of Orissa would not be the "appropriate Government" in the matter of exercise of statutory powers for referring the dispute. 5. Chagla, C.J., in the case of Lalbhai Tricumlal Mills Ltd. Vs. Manubhai Motilal Vin and Others dealing with a question of this type pointed out: ...But what we are concerned with to decide is: where did the dispute substantially arise? Now, the Act does not deal with the causes of action, nor does it indicate what factors will confer jurisdiction upon the Labour Court. But applying the well-known tests of jurisdiction, a Court or Tribunal would have jurisdiction if the parties reside within jurisdiction or if the subject-matter of the dispute substantially arises within jurisdiction.... This dictum has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Cable Co. Ltd. Calcutta v. Their Workmen (1962) 22 F.J.R. 262 . Applying this dictum to the facts of the each of the case, different High Courts have decided the dispute relating to jurisdiction one way or the other. Reference may be made to the case of Vallamalai Estate Vs. Workers of Vallamalai Estate and Another, ; Paints Employees' Union (by general secretary) and Another Vs. Nail (M.D.) (Assistant Commissioner of Labour at Bombay) and Another, ; Little Sons & Co. v. State and Ors. Reference may be made to the case of Vallamalai Estate Vs. Workers of Vallamalai Estate and Another, ; Paints Employees' Union (by general secretary) and Another Vs. Nail (M.D.) (Assistant Commissioner of Labour at Bombay) and Another, ; Little Sons & Co. v. State and Ors. (1977) 51 F.J.R. 142; Associated Traders & Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. Additional Industrial Tribunal, Delhi (1976) 49 F.J.R. 187; E.I.D. Parry Ltd. v. State of Tamilnadu (1975) 47 F.J.R. 385; and Managing Director, Emerald Valley Estates Ltd. v. Secretary for Kerala, The Estates & Staff's Union of South India (1979) Lab. I.C. 86. The decision in each of the cases has turned on its own facts but there does not seem to be any discord about the test to be applied in determining the situs of dispute upon which depends the question as to which would be the "appropriate Government" and to which Labour Court the dispute would be referred. 6. This Court in the case of Hindustan Samachar v. State of Orissa 46 (1978) C.L.T. 419, examined a question of this type and observed: ...The term 'appropriate Government' is defined in Section 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The definition is not very helpful for determining the appropriate State Government. But Section 10(1) of the Act does comtemplate that the appropriate Government would be that Government in whose jurisdiction industrial dispute arises or is apprehended when it says that 'where the appropriate Government is of opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, it may at any time by order in writing' make a reference. The proper test to determine ''appropriate Government' in relation to an industrial dispute is to see where the dispute substantially arose. If a workman is working in a separate establishment, the dispute can be taken to arise only at the place where the establishment exists. The mere fact that the head office exercises administrative control over the workman does not confer jurisdiction on the Government, within whose territorial jurisdiction the head office is located, to make a reference u/s 10. In reaching the conclusion, reference was made to several decisions of the Supreme Court. 7. Mr. The mere fact that the head office exercises administrative control over the workman does not confer jurisdiction on the Government, within whose territorial jurisdiction the head office is located, to make a reference u/s 10. In reaching the conclusion, reference was made to several decisions of the Supreme Court. 7. Mr. Nanda for the employer has taken the stand that the services of the workman under the Cuttack branch had already come to an end by his relief from the branch and the workman had orders to join at Siliguri in West Bengal. After his relief, if the workman did not report to duty at Siliguri and on that account his services were terminated by the head office at Calcutta, merely because the order was served at Cuttack it cannot be claimed that a part of the cause of action arose at Cuttack. Undoubtedly the dispute which had been referred to the Labour Court is in relation to termination of service. Admittedly the order of termination was served on the workman at Cuttack. Since the dispute centres round the validity of the termination, it may not be proper to hold that a part of the cause of action did not arise at Cuttack. 8. This exactly is not a case of want of jursidction in the sense that the dispute is being referred to a Tribunal lacking inherent jurisdiction. The dispute is with reference to territorial jurisdiction. In the instant case, conciliation was undertaken by the conciliation office, Cuttack. Before him, the employer did not raise the objection of lack of jurisdiction. For a couple of years, the conciliation officer attempted to bring about reconciliation and ultimately submitted the failure report to the State Government of Orissa as provided u/s 12(4) of the Act. It is upon a consideration of this report that the State Government made the reference of the dispute to the Labour Court under Sub-section (5) of Section 12 read with Section 10(1) of the Act. The employer having participated in the conciliation proceeding and acquiesced to the jursidiction of the local conciliation officer, it would not at all be proper now to permit the employer to dispute the jursidiction of the State Government to make a reference. The employer having participated in the conciliation proceeding and acquiesced to the jursidiction of the local conciliation officer, it would not at all be proper now to permit the employer to dispute the jursidiction of the State Government to make a reference. Under the scheme of the Act, reference depends upon the result of conciliation and on the facts of the case we must hold that the employer had at one stage acquiesced to the jurisdiction of the conciliation officer. The proceeding before the conciliation officer is statutory though not judicial. Undoubtedly the result of that proceeding leads to a reference. At this belated stage to allow the employer to raise the objection of lack of territorial jurisdiction would certainly prejudice the workman; on the other hand, if the matter is allowed to be adjudicated by the Labour Court at Bhuba-neswar neither party would really suffer inasmuch as the employer has a branch at Cuttack and the workman also lives at Cuttack. Taking an overall picture of the matter and in consideration of the fact that it is not a case of total lack of jurisdiction, we do not propose to exercise our discretion and interfere with the impugned order. 9. The writ application is accordingly dismissed. There would be no order for costs. P.K. Monnati, J. 10. I agree.