JUDGMENT V. K. Mehrotra, J. - M/s. Northern India Gas Company Limited, (for brief, the company) has assailed in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution an order made by the State Government under Section 4-K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act referring a dispute relating to the ^termination of the service of Nathu Ram, respondent No. 3, by the petitioner. This order is annexure 2 to the writ petition and is dated February 23, 1980} The question that the reference was not competent because the dispute between the company and Nathu Ram stood settled on account of a settlement arrived at-between the parties in Conciliation Board Case No. 964 of 1978, raised by way of preliminary objection by the Company was decided by the Labour Court against the company by its order of September 3, 1980, This order is annexure 4 to the writ petition and has also been assailed by the company in this petition. 2. Nathu Ram was employed as a driver with the Company. He did not attend duty with effect from November 23, 1977 and bad, according to the Company, abandoned his job. He had done so because he had become alchohohc and was not behaving properly upon which he was asked by the Company repeatedly to n.end his ways. Workman Nathu Ram says that his services wire illegally terminated by the Company on that date. 3. The ease of the Company is that the workman had initiated a Conciliation Board case, which was registeied as Case No. 964 of 1978, with the grievance that his services had been illegally terminated. That proceeding had been initiated through the U. P. Industrial Mazdoor Federation, Kanpur. The company appeared in those proceedings and a settlement took place before the Regional Conciliation Officer on January 18, 1979. No dispute survives after that lettkmeut between the parties. 4. Later, a fresh application was made by Nathu Ram before the Regional Conciliation Officer which gave rise to Conciliation Board Case No. 304 of 1979-During the proceedings in this Conciliation Board case, the Company pleaded that no dispute survived between it and Nathu Ram on account of the settlement in C. B. Case No. 961 of 1978. It led evidence, both oral and documentary, to establish that the settlement had been arrived at between the parties in the earlier C. B. Case. It led evidence, both oral and documentary, to establish that the settlement had been arrived at between the parties in the earlier C. B. Case. The plea of Nathu Ram was that no such settlement ever took place. The Regional Conciliation Officer made a report to the State Government on the basis whereof the impugned reference under Section -K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act was made by it to the Labour Court, IV, U. P. Kanpur. he reference is pending as Adjudication Case No. 57 of 1980. 5. The petition was presented in this Court on October 7, 1980. On November 3, 1980 a Bench of this Court stayed further proceedings in Adjudication Case No. 57 of 1980 before the Labour Court. 6. Sri V. B. Singh has appeared on behalf of the Company and has urged that the considerations which have weighed with the Labour Court in taking the view that a reference under Section 4 K was competent in the instant case, irrespective of the earlier settlement in C. B. Case No. 964 of 1978, are irrelevant and the order of the Labour Court rejecting the preliminary objection of the Company, cannot be upheld The plea on behalf of the company before the Labour Court was that the Settlement in C. B. case No. 964 of 1978 had been made by the U. P. Industrial Mazdoor Federation, Kanpur, which was a Federation of the Unions of Workmen at Kanpur and was competent to represent Nathu Ram in those proceedings. The order of the Labour Court shows that it summoned the original records pertaining to C B Case No. 964 of 1978 and found that apart from the Federation aforesaid, the name of no other union appeared in the proceedings in that C. B. case before the Conciliation Officer. The evidence of the witnesses examined by the Labour Court in this respect also did not disclose the name of any Union representing either Nathu Ram or workmen of the petitioner company which might have been affiliated to the Federation. The Labour Court also gave some other reasons for its view that the preliminary objection was not sustainable. The evidence of the witnesses examined by the Labour Court in this respect also did not disclose the name of any Union representing either Nathu Ram or workmen of the petitioner company which might have been affiliated to the Federation. The Labour Court also gave some other reasons for its view that the preliminary objection was not sustainable. It is not necessary for me to go into those reasons for it appears clear that in the absence of proof, by cogent documentary evidence, to the satisfaction of the Labour Court that the Federation was competent to represent the workman who was a member of a Union of the workmen of the Company which was affiliated to it, the view taken by it that the U. P. Industrial Mazdoor Federation, Kanpur could not enter into a settlement on behalf of the respondent Nathu Ram, cannot be said to be manifestly erroneous in law. 7. Section 2(t) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act defines settlement to meat), inter alia, settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings and includes a written agreement which has been signed by the parties there to in the manner prescribed. Rule 5 of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Rules provides that a settlement arrived at before a Conciliation Officer or other wise outside the conciliation proceeding, shall be in Form and that the settlement shall be signed, in the case of workman, either by the workman himself or by the President or Secretary of the Union of Workmen, competent to represent the workman under Section 61 or of a Federation of such unions. 8. Section 61 (1) provides that subject to the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3), the parties may be represented before the Conciliation Board, in the manner prescribed. In the proviso, it is contemplated that a party maybe represented by an officer of a Federation of Unions subject to such conditions as may be prescribed. Rule 40 of U. P. Industrial Disputes Rules deals with the representation of parties. Sub-sub (1) of this rule says that the parties may be represented before the Board, in the case of a workman, by an officer of a Union of which be is member or by an officer of a Federation of unions to which the union aforesaid is affiliated. It also provides for representation in cases where there is no union of workman. 9. It also provides for representation in cases where there is no union of workman. 9. These provisions make it abundantly clear that before the U.P. Industrial Mazdoor Federation could be said to be competent to represent Nathu Ram and enter into a settlement on his behalf as alleged, in C B. case No. 964 of 1978, it was imperative for the petitioner company to establish to the satisfaction of the Labour Court that any union which was competent to represent Nathu Ram was affiliated to the Federation. This has not been established by the petitioner before the Labour Court. Even in the present writ petition the petitioner company has not disclosed the name of any union of its workmen which was competent to represent Nathu Ram and which was affiliated to the Federation. The parties have exchanged affidavits and have appended documents thereto but that crucial link is missing. 10. It was then urged by Sri Singh that the Labour Court did not go into the question of invalidity of the reference on the ground that Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act was not attracted in the case as it was not a case where the services of Nathu Ram were either terminated or Nathu Ram was discharged or dismissed or retrenched. The argument is that on the case set up by the Company Nathu Ram had abdoned his post. 11. The plea relating to abandonment has been taken by the Company iii its written statement which was filed subsequent to its filing the initial written statement containing its preliminary objection. The impugned order only disposed of the preliminary objection The other pleas will, naturally, be gone into by the Labour Court when the proceedings recommence before it. 12. In view of what has been said above, it must be held that the petitioner company is not entitled to relief in this writ petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed. Since, however, no one has appeared during the course of hearing on behalf of respondent Nathu Ram, the parties are left to bear their own costs.