( 1 ) ON 20th April, 1999 a statement was made by Seamed counsel for the respondent to the effect that dispute has been referred to Industrial Tribunal No. 2 vide notification dated 20th July, 1998 and in view of this statement the writ petition became infructuous. Since counset for the petitioner was not present in court on that date the matter was adjourned for today. Learned counsel for the petitioner accepts this position but states that the matter was referred for adjudication after 1 1/2 years of raising the dispute and that too when the present writ petition was filed. It is expected that when dispute is raised by the workman-union and conciliation proceedings start and such conciliation proceeding end in failure, the appropriate government should take immediate steps to consider whether the matter is to be referred or not and if reference is required the same should be made without delay as the very purpose of industrial adjudication is defeated by making delayed reference. ( 2 ) IT is hoped that Industrial Tribunal shall expedite the adjudication proceedings. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner further points out that the petitioner has also prayed for direction against respondent No. 1 to initiate prosecution proceedings against respondent No. 2 for its alleged indulgence into unfair labour practice. The representation of the petitioner in this respect may be decided, one way or the other, by respondent No. 1 within three months from today. It is hoped that Industrial Tribunal shall expedite adjudication proceedings. No other relief is prayed for. Accordingly. writ petition and application are disposed of.