JUDGMENT S.H.A. Raza, J. - Being aggrieved against the order dated May 9, 1980, by means of which the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Lucknow made an award by giving a finding to the effect that the employers were not competent to terminate the services of Ori Lal from 7th July, 1975 and they acted illegally in doing so. They could have, at the best, sent Ori Lal back to P.W.D. if he was not prepared to take up fresh appointment with them and P.W.D. alone was competent to take such action against this workman Ori Lal as was open to them in accordance with law in regard to the termination of his services. The Labour Court further directed that the workman would be entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and all the benefits of continuity in services. 2. The U.P. State Bridge Corporation, Lucknow preferred the present writ petition on the ground that the reference under Section 4k of the Act having been made by respondent No. 3 to respondent No. 2 treating that the petitioner was not the employer of respondent No. 1 and it was not open for respondent No. 2 to hold that the petitioner was not the employer of respondent No. 1 and accordingly had no right to terminate the services of respondent No. 1. It was further argued that by holding that the respondent No. 1 was an employee of P. W. D. on deputation with the U.P. State Bridge Corporation, the award passed by the Labour Court was in excess of the reference and beyond the jurisdiction of respondent No. 2. It was further averred that as the matter was earlier adjudicated upon in an earlier adjudication case, namely case No. 1292 of 1975 on 7976 upon a reference made earlier, under Section 4k of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, no second reference under Section 4k could be properly made. It was also pointed out that the respondent No. 1 did not raise the dispute in view of the agreement arrived at before the Conciliation Officer referred to in paragraph 13 of the written statement. 3. The factual matrix as set out in the writ petition is that the Government of Uttar Pradesh has referred the Industrial dispute raised by opposite party No. 1 under Section 4k of Industrial Disputes Act. 3. The factual matrix as set out in the writ petition is that the Government of Uttar Pradesh has referred the Industrial dispute raised by opposite party No. 1 under Section 4k of Industrial Disputes Act. The parties have filed their written statements and two preliminary issues were framed : 1. Whether the dispute here is not an industrial dispute as alleged by the employer ? If so, its effect ? 2. Whether the reference is bad in law as alleged by the employers ? 4. On February 21, 1980 the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court while dealing with issue No. 1 indicated that by his notice dated 971975, Ext. W1 the workman Ori Lal disputed the illegality and propriety of the employer's action in breaking the continuity of his employment, and asking him to take fresh employment and demanded withdrawal of the orders dated 7th July, 1975. This notice was duly received by the employers and they also replied to it vide Ext. W2. Thus it is clear that workman made a demand to the employers and raised a dispute in regard to his employment. The Court came to a definite conclusion that there existed an industrial dispute and the Court had jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the said dispute. The Presiding Officer also negatived the second issue. 5. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court held that the workman was not entitled to any relief from that Court particularly for the reason that he never made any demand either to P. W. D. or the Bridge Corporation for his reinstatement. It seems that the Labour Court while answering the aforesaid reference failed to notice the finding of the Labour Court dated 21st February, 1980 in which in reply to issue No. 1 the Labour Court indicated that there existed an industrial dispute particularly for the reason that a demand for reinstatement was made by the workman. Afterwards State of U.P. again referred the said dispute to the Labour Court. 6. There is nothing in the Industrial Disputes Act which puts an embargo upon the right of the State to refer the dispute twice if the State Government feels that earlier reference was not properly dealt with. Afterwards State of U.P. again referred the said dispute to the Labour Court. 6. There is nothing in the Industrial Disputes Act which puts an embargo upon the right of the State to refer the dispute twice if the State Government feels that earlier reference was not properly dealt with. There is no doubt that the earlier award passed by the Labour Court was erroneous for the reason that the reference was negatived solely on the ground that the workman did not make a demand for reinstatement, when this preliminary issue was already decided in favour of the workman probably only for this reason that the State Government thought in its wisdom to refer the dispute again to the Labour Court. Nothing has been shown to this Court from which this Court may come to a conclusion that the second reference was wrong or improper. Hence the argument of the petitioner on that point fails. 7. From the record it is evident that earlier the workman was engaged by the P. W, D., but after the creation of Bridge Corporation, his services were transferred to Bridge Corporation. The services of the workman were terminated by Bridge Corporation. The Labour Court was perfectly justified in giving a finding to the effect that employers were not competent to terminate the services of Ori Lal from 7th July, 1975 and they have acted illegally and improperly in doing so. They could have sent the respondent No. 1 Ori Lal back to P.W.D. if he was not prepared to take fresh appointment and the P. W. D. was alone competent to take action against the workman Sri Ori Lal as was open to them. In view of the fact that the respondent No. 1's services were transferred on deputation to Bridge Corporation, the Tribunal was justified in giving a finding to the effect that they could have sent Ori Lal back to P. W. D. and it had no right to terminate his services. 8. I have gone through the entire judgment of the Labour Court. The Labour Court has given a well reasoned judgment. No manifest error of law has been pointed out to discredit the conclusion arrived at by the Labour Court. The writ petition is devoid of merit. It is accordingly dismissed. No order is made as to costs.