JUDGMENT D.S. Sinha, J. - Heard Sri Sudhir Agarwal, holding brief of Sri S.C. Budhwar. learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Sri Gopal Chandra Saxena, holding brief of Sri Shyam Narain, learned Counsel representing contesting Respondent No. 2. 2. By means of this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, M/s. Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd., Shamli District Muzaffarnagar, the Petitioner, seeks to challenge the award dated 25th June, 1984, rendered by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Kanpur. the Respondent No. 1, in Adjudication Case No. 11 of 1983, registered on reference by the Government of Uttar Pradesh u/s 4K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 here-in-after called the Act, whereby the Petitioner has been directed to reinstate the Respondent No. 2, Sukhvir Singh, a seasonal employee, grant continuity of service and pay the dues admissible to him on the footing of his being in continuous service. 3. The Respondent No. 4 was a seasonal clerk employed with the Petitioner Cooperative Society. His services were terminated by means of the order dated 30th July/2nd August, 1978. A copy of the termination order is Annexure 2 to the petition. Aggrieved by the order of termination, the Respondent No. 2 filed an appeal under Regulation 76 of the U.P. Cane Cooperative Service Regulations, 1975, here-in-after called the Regulations. This appeal was allowed by the appellate authority by means of its order dated 23rd March/2nd June, 1981, a copy whereof is to be found on record as Annexure 4 to the petition. The order of the appellate authority purported administer warning to the Respondent No. 7 and direct his reinstatement against the post falling vacant in future. It also clarified that the Respondent No. 2 would not be entitled to any salary for the period he remaining out of employment. 4. It appears that the Respondent No. 2 was not reinstated. He, therefore, raised an Industrial Dispute against the order of termination dated 30th July/2nd August, 1978 and this led to a reference to the Respondent No. 1 u/s 4-K of the Act. 5. The question referred to the Respondent No. 1 was as to whether the termination of the services of the Respondent No. 2 by the Petitioner by means of the order dated 30th July, 1978 was proper and legal. 6. 5. The question referred to the Respondent No. 1 was as to whether the termination of the services of the Respondent No. 2 by the Petitioner by means of the order dated 30th July, 1978 was proper and legal. 6. In the fore-front, the submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that the reference to the Respondent No. 1 was incompetent and as such the impugned award is invalid. Elaborating his submission the learned Counsel submits that the termination order dated 30th July/2nd August, 1978, the adjudication of the validity whereof was subject matter of reference before the Respondent No. 1, did not exist inasmuch as it was substituted by the order of the appellate authority passed in the appeal preferred by the Respondent No. 2 against the said order of termination. According to the learned Counsel the order dated 30th July/2nd August, 1978 stood merged in the order of the appellate authority dated 23rd March/2nd June, 1981. There is force in the submission of the learned Counsel. 7. It has not been disputed before this Court that the order of termination was appealable under Regulation 76 of the Regulations. It is also not in dispute that the Respondent No. 2 had filed an appeal questioning the validity of the termination order and the appellate authority had passed the order dated 23rd March/2nd June, 1981 substituting the order of termination by its order. The order passed by the appellate authority under the Regulations has to be given effect by the authority against whose order the appeal is preferred under the Regulations. The Regulation 87 of the Regulations obliges every authority against whose order an appeal is preferred under the Regulations to give effect to any order made by the appellate authority. 8. The termination order, having been substituted by the order of the appellate authority and having merged therein, at the instance of the Respondent No. 2 himself, was no longer available for constituting a ground for an industrial dispute under the Act. Actually the grievance of the Petitioner was against the non-implementation of the order passed by the appellate authority on his appeal against the termination order. No grievance against the termination order, which, as already pointed out, stood merged with the appellate order, could be raised by the Respondent No. 2. 9. Actually the grievance of the Petitioner was against the non-implementation of the order passed by the appellate authority on his appeal against the termination order. No grievance against the termination order, which, as already pointed out, stood merged with the appellate order, could be raised by the Respondent No. 2. 9. Thus it is clear that in view of its merger with the order of the appellate authority the order of termination could not form basis of reference to the Respondent No. 1 u/s 4-K of the Act and the reference was incompetent. The reference culminating into the impugned award being incompetent, the award cannot be sustained in law and has to be quashed. 10. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned award a copy whereof is Annexure 9 to the petition is quashed. There will be no order as to costs.