JUDGMENT : 1. Rule returnable forthwith Respondents waive service through respective Advocates. 2. After having perused the record and heard the learned Advocates for all the parties, we are satisfied that the reasons given by the State Government for refusing reference vide order dated January 9, 1998 are neither relevant, nor germane. 3. It is not in dispute that in 1995, when the demands were raised by the petitioner Union, the petitioner Union represented the majority of workmen in Mumbai, Thane and Bhiwandi. It is also not in dispute that the Kolhapur establishment of the 1st Respondent is entirely different from the ones at Mumbai, Thane and Bhiwandi. The recognition obtained by the 4th Respondent under Chapter III of M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act could not enure for the latter three establishments of the 1st Respondent. 4. The record shows that though the salary and allowances of workmen represented by the petitioner Union were revised, the said revision was unilateral and accepted by the concerned workmen under protest, and without prejudice to their rights, as indicated in the letter dated January 4, 1996 addressed to the 1st Respondent. Mr. Purav for the 1st Respondent does not dispute that, when conciliation proceedings were held at Kolhapur and an agreement was arrived at between the petitioner and the 1st respondent and 4th respondent Union, the petitioner Union was neither given notice, nor was it in any way associated with the said conciliation proceedings. 5. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the existence of the settlement between the 1st and 4th Respondents or of the acceptance of the benefits arising thereunder, under protest, are not good grounds for refusing the reference, particularly taking into view that the demands raised by the petitioner Union were pending from the year 1995. 6. Mr. Purav, learned Advocate for the 1st Respondent, submits that, apart from the said reasons, the 1st Respondent has said several of the contentions in support of its objection to the reference being granted. Perusal of the impugned order dated January 9, 1998 discloses no other reasons considered by the Commissioner of Labour. 7. In these circumstances, we are satisfied that the impugned order dated January 9, 1998 needs to be set aside. Hence, the impugned order dated January 9, 1998 issued by the Commissioner of Labour, Government of Maharashtra, is hereby quashed and set aside. Respondent Nos. 7. In these circumstances, we are satisfied that the impugned order dated January 9, 1998 needs to be set aside. Hence, the impugned order dated January 9, 1998 issued by the Commissioner of Labour, Government of Maharashtra, is hereby quashed and set aside. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are directed to rehear the parties and take a fresh decision on the issue as to whether the demands raised by the petitioner Union are required to be referred for adjudication, within a period of three months from today. 8. Rule accordingly made absolute. No order as to costs.