Judgment :- (Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the 1st respondent in G.O.(D) No: 974, Labour and Employment (P.1) Department and quash its order dated 3.8.2004.) This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of reference issued by the first respondent in G.O. (D) No: 974, Labour and Employment (P1) Department dated 3.8.2004. Petitioner management of Madura Coats is having four units, two at Madurai, one at Ambasamudram and another at Tuticorin. The workmen of all these units are members of various unions recognized by the Management. On 09.07.1971 a settlement under Section 12 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, was entered into which deals with employment of worker’s nominee. As per the terms of this settlement, a list of nominees of workers who retire within last two years or who retire thereafter has to be prepared. A second list with regard to the nominees of the workmen who are in service has to be prepared. Besides, if the nominee is found unsuitable for work or if his conduct is found unsatisfactory, during the period of learnership, the concerned workman is entitled to make another application in his place. 2. Subsequent to this, another settlement under Section 12 (3) of the Act has been entered into on 23.12.1976. As per this settlement, in respect of the future vacancies when learners are to be recruited, legal heirs of the retired workmen and workmen in service and assistants and attenders will be given employment subject to the result of their performance in the test to be conducted. The right of the Management to appoint outsiders on certain occasion is not affected. 3. On 24.04.1978 another settlement was entered into under Section 18 (1) of the Act. As per the third settlement, due to lack of order, production has reduced which resulted in excess of labour and hence, the employees who proceed on voluntary retirement scheme between the age of 50 and 55 years can nominate their heirs for appointment as learners. The legal heirs of the assistants who retire from service in terms of the settlement dated 31.07.1975 and 26.09.1975 would be recruited as learners in the Mill department. 4. The legal heirs of the assistants who retire from service in terms of the settlement dated 31.07.1975 and 26.09.1975 would be recruited as learners in the Mill department. 4. Again on 12.02.1987, another settlement under Section 12 (3) of the Act was signed with various trade unions including the second respondent herein. This settlement provided for transfer of 250 learners from Madurai unit to Ambasamudram unit due to excess strength in Madurai unit. Besides in future if Madurai unit is expanded and if it requires additional strength, then the Management shall consider retransfer of the transferred workmen to Madurai Unit. Subsequent to this, on 07.05.1990, 55 workmen were transferred from Madurai unit to Ambasamudram unit. Subsequent to this, on 17.01.1991, a settlement was signed under Section 18 (1) of the Act to which the second respondent herein was not a party. This settlement provided for re-transfer of 100 workmen from Ambasamudram unit to Madurai unit and for mutual transfer of workmen from Madurai unit to Ambasamudram unit which has to be completed by 31.05.1991. These 5 settlements concluded the issue regarding recruitment of learners and preference to be given to the legal heirs of the retired employees as well as in-service employees. 5. In the year 1992, the second respondent herein has filed W.P.No: 10506 of 1992 before this Court with a prayer to direct the respondent to initiate action against the petitioner for alleged violation of the settlement dated 23.12.1976 on the ground that the petitioner had recruited 382 workmen who are all outsiders. By an order dated 22.03.2000, this writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to pass appropriate orders on the representation made by the second respondent herein within a period of three months. Subsequent to this, by an order dated 20.09.2000, the first respondent has passed an order stating that the allegations levelled in the petition is not specific and no particulars have been furnished with regard to the nature of violation committed by the Management and hence, action cannot be initiated. Subsequent to this, by an order dated 20.09.2000, the first respondent has passed an order stating that the allegations levelled in the petition is not specific and no particulars have been furnished with regard to the nature of violation committed by the Management and hence, action cannot be initiated. Aggrieved over this, the second respondent herein filed a review application dated 12.02.2001 to the effect that 55 workmen who were not covered by the settlement dated 23.12.1976 were recruited and that on 07.05.1990, they were transferred to Ambasamudram unit which amounts to violation of the terms of the settlement dated 23.12.1976 and besides stating in spite of the representations, the last one being dated 22.8.1987, till date, the particulars of the 55 workmen was not furnished to him, besides, in the event of the Management not furnishing the particulars of 55 workmen, it should be construed that the Management had contravened cluase 6 of the settlement dated 23.12.1976 and for this reason, the petitioner herein should be prosecuted. 6. On this review application, by letter dated 24.12.2001, the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Madurai, has directed the petitioner herein to appear for an enquiry on 07.01.2002. Petitioner management had also sent its reply by letter dated 5.2.2002 wherein the petitioner refused to furnish the particulars of the 55 workmen, whose appointment is in contravention to the settlement dated 23.12.1976. Subsequent to this, by G.O. Ms. No: 974 dated 03.08.2004, the first respondent has passed the impugned order referring for adjudication the issue since as per the settlement dated 23.12.1976, the management is bound to provide employment to legal heirs of the 77 workmen in terms of the settlement dated 23.12.1976 and in the event of they not provided with employment, whether they would be entitled for compensation. Challenging this order, management has filed this writ petition. 7. As per the learned counsel for the petitioner, the first respondent has passed the impugned order without application of mind. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the reference has been made by the order of the first respondent for an issue for which no industrial dispute has been raised. The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the order of reference is not in terms of the dispute raised, the same is prima facie illegal and it has to be set aside. 8. The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the order of reference is not in terms of the dispute raised, the same is prima facie illegal and it has to be set aside. 8. The second respondent, who appears as party-in-person, has submitted written arguments. On behalf of the second respondent herein, Mr. A. Ramesh, learned counsel, has assisted this Court and as per his contention, originally the vacate stay petitioner/ the second respondent herein had filed a writ petition with a prayer to initiate action for violation of the terms of the 12 (3) settlement dated 23.12.1976 for recruiting 382 outsiders. As per the prayer in the writ petition action cannot be initiated against the petitioner herein. In fact, the actual prayer which is sought for is only with regard to the failure on the part of the management not giving appointment to the heirs of the 77 workers in terms of the 12 (3) settlement dated 23.12.1976. The matter has been remitted back by an order of this Court dated 22.03.2000. Subsequently, on remand, Government has passed an order saying that since the request of the union is not specific with regard to the violation committed by the management, the matter cannot be gone into. The second respondent filed a review petition dated 12.12.2001 wherein besides seeking to get the particulars of the 55 employees, it also sought for action against the management for the alleged violation of the settlement. Basing on this, the Government has passed the impugned order making a reference with regard to the failure on the part of the management in not giving employment to the heirs of the 77 workers. He further contended that since the original prayer of the second respondent is to initiate action for violation of the 12 (3) settlement dated 23.12.1976, the order of reference is in conformity with the issue raised in the Industrial Dispute and hence, the impugned order passed by the first respondent is in order. 9. I have considered the submissions made by the respective counsel. 9. I have considered the submissions made by the respective counsel. The second respondent herein has originally filed W.P. No: 10506 of 1992 with the following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass order issue directions and writs as may be deemed fit and in particular issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the first respondent to initiate action against the respondents 4 and 5 in accordance with law for violating the 12 (3) settlement dated 23.12.1976 by recruiting 382 workers who are all outsiders.� As per the above said prayer of the second respondent action has to be initiated against the management/petitioner herein for violating 12 (3) settlement dated 23.12.1976 for recruiting 382 workers who are outsiders. The said W.P. No: 10506 of 1992 has been disposed of by an order dated 22.03.2000 remanding the matter back to the first respondent herein. 10. On remand, by an order dated 20.09.2000, the first respondent has rejected the claim of the second respondent herein since no specific violation of 12 (3) settlement dated 23.12.1976 has been pointed out against the management. Subsequent to this, petitioner has submitted a review petition dated 12.02.2001 wherein the issue mentioned by the second respondent is with regard to the appointment of 55 workers who are not covered by the settlement dated 23.12.1976 in the Madurai mill originally and subsequently transferred to Ambasamudram Unit on 07.05.1990. As per the 12 (3) settlement dated 23.12.1976 each employee can nominate one nominee and in the process of selection if that nominee is not good, the employee can nominate another person. That apart, in future while recruiting employees, legal heirs of the retired workers and the workers who are in service, assistants and attenders, have to be given appointment subject to the process of selection. If any one of the legal heir is already in employment in the mill, then their heirs will not be considered. Now, according to the second respondent herein, the appointment of these 55 workmen is in contravention of the 12 (3) settlement dated 23.12.1976. If any one of the legal heir is already in employment in the mill, then their heirs will not be considered. Now, according to the second respondent herein, the appointment of these 55 workmen is in contravention of the 12 (3) settlement dated 23.12.1976. To say in other words, totally ignoring the claim of the heirs of the workers, which as per clause 6 of the settlement deed has to be considered, 55 outsiders have been appointed in the Madurai mill and subsequently, they have been transferred to Ambasamudram Unit which is contrary to the terms of the settlement dated 23.12.1976. As per the petition dated 23.12.2001 submitted by the second respondent herein, in spite of its repeated requests, the particulars of the 55 workers who were appointed contrary to the 12 (3) settlement dated 23.12.1976 has not been furnished. When it has not furnished the particulars sought for the petitioner management is deemed to have vitiated the 12 (3) settlement dated 23.12.1976 and hence, appropriate order has to be passed. 11. Now, the 1st respondent has passed the impugned order dated 3.8.2004 referring for adjudicating the issue that as per settlement dated 23.12.1976, the heirs of 77 workmen have to be given employment, in the event of failure on the part of the Management in providing employment to the heirs of the 77 workmen, whether they are entitled for compensation. According to the second respondent, the appointment of 55 workers who were originally appointed in the Madurai unit and subsequently transferred to Ambasamudrum unit are outsiders. To say in other words, by the appointment of these 55 workmen, the claims of the heirs of 77 workers were ignored, hence, the petitioner Management has contravened the settlement dated 23.12.1976. In my opinion, the subject matter in issue in the impugned order as well as in the petition submitted by the second respondent herein is one and the same i.e. failure on the part of the management to give employment to the heirs of the 77 workers and instead appointed 55 outsiders. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner management that the order of reference has been passed without application of mind cannot be accepted. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner management that the order of reference has been passed without application of mind cannot be accepted. That apart, the second contention of the petitioner that the second respondent has raised an industrial dispute with regard to the transfer of 55 workers from Madurai unit to Ambasamudram Unit alone is also totally incorrect. According to the dispute raised, the appointment of 55 workers, who were transferred from Madurai Unit to Ambasamudram Unit is in violation of the 12 (3) settlement dated 23.12.1976. Consequence of this, the heirs of 77 workmen could not get employment. As such, the order of reference is well within the dispute raised. Consequently, the other submission that the petitioner was not called upon to answer the issue raised in the impugned order will not stand. Hence, the writ petition No: 26639 of 2004 and W.P. M.P. No: 32434 of 2004 are dismissed. Consequently, W.V. M.P. No: 351 of 2005 is closed as unnecessary. No costs.