JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rajes Kumar, J.—By means of present petition, the petitioner is challenging the award dated 10.10.2000 given by the Prescribed Authority Labour Court (III), U.P., Kanpur in Industrial Disputes Case No. 1 of 1991 on the reference being made by the State Government under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act). 2. The petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 15/1, Cubbon Road, Bangalore. It is claimed to be Government of India undertaking. The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of sophisticated Aircraft and other defence equipments and caters to the Ministry of Defence in India. The petitioner has several units all over India. The dispute relates to the unit at Chakeri, Kanpur. The Company claimed to have been incorporated in the year 1964. The respondent No. 3 claimed to have been appointed as a Fitter in the petitioner’s Company in the year 1964. He worked till 1967. Since then, he remained absent and did not report for work at all. In the year 1988, the respondent No. 3 raised his claim before the Conciliation Officer and claimed that his services had been wrongly terminated with effect from 9.10.1967. The respondent No. 3 also moved an application for the condonation of delay on 29.9.1988 and filed objection in C.B. Case No. 1124 of 1988. The petitioner received a notice dated 22.10.1988 and the petitioner also received an order/letter dated 30.4.1990 written by Joint Secretary, Labour Department, U.P. Government, Kanpur to Shri P.N. Tripathi, respondent No. 3 by which it was informed that the State Government has not considered the case proper for adjudication and the same has been consigned to record on the ground that the dispute has been raised delayed. However, vide letter dated 7.1.1991 it has been informed that Government has referred the dispute under Section 4-K of the Act to the Labour Court on the issue “Kya Sewayojakon dwara apne Karmachari Prem Narain Tripathi putra Shri Ram Nath Tripathi Pad-Assembly Fitter ko dinank 9.10.67 se karya se prathak/banchit kiya jana anuchit evam avaidhanik hai? Yadi ha, to sambandhit karmachari kya hitlabh/upsham pane ka adhikari hai tatha kis anya vivran sahit.” 3. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid reference by means of Writ Petition No. 11821 of 1991 on the ground that it was made after 21 years. Yadi ha, to sambandhit karmachari kya hitlabh/upsham pane ka adhikari hai tatha kis anya vivran sahit.” 3. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid reference by means of Writ Petition No. 11821 of 1991 on the ground that it was made after 21 years. This Court passed an interim order staying the order of reference. However, the writ petition was finally decided vide order dated 18.5.99. This Court observed as follows : “The main ground of challenge in the present petition is that the dispute has been raised by respondent No. 3 after 21 years and, therefore, the reference should not be made by the State Government. It is now well settled that there is no limitation prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act for referring the matter for adjudication. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajab Singh v. Sirhind Co-operative Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society Limited and another, JT 1999 (3) SC 38 had held that the provisions of the limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable in respect of proceeding arising under the Industrial Disputes Act. It is for the Labour Court to mould the relief according to the facts of the case. It shall be open to the petitioner to raise whatever objection it wants to raise before the Labour Court.” 4. Thereafter the petitioner received the notice in Adjudication Case No. 1 of 1991. On behalf of petitioner, Sri S.C. Saxena, Advocate appeared. Respondent No. 3 had filed his written statement on 5.3.1991. The petitioner filed its written statement on 2.8.2000. The petitioner raised various objections claimed to be as follows : (a) The petitioner’s Company belongs to the Central Government Public Sector and was fully controlled and managed by the Central Government and, therefore, the State Government could not refer the matter under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act in view of the provisions of Section 2 (I) (i) and (ii) of the Act and it is the Central Government who can refer the matter. (b) By the notification dated 3.7.1998 the Central Government had transferred power to the State Government to make reference under the Industrial Disputes Act. Such power would be exercised by the State Government only after 3.7.1998 and, therefore, the reference made by the State Government in 1991 was without jurisdiction. (b) By the notification dated 3.7.1998 the Central Government had transferred power to the State Government to make reference under the Industrial Disputes Act. Such power would be exercised by the State Government only after 3.7.1998 and, therefore, the reference made by the State Government in 1991 was without jurisdiction. (c) The constitution of the Labour Court was under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act and not under the Industrial Disputes Act (Central) and, therefore, it had no jurisdiction to try the case of the petitioner for which the appropriate Government was the Central Government. (d) The reference made after 21 years was highly belated. The appointment of the Presiding Officer hearing the matter was not valid as he did not fulfil the condition under Articles 234 and 236 of the Constitution of India and also the provisions of Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. 5. A rejoinder statement was also filed by the petitioner on 13.8.2000. The respondent No. 3 moved an application on 2.8.2000 by which he objected the appearance of Sri S.C. Saxena, Advocate who was authorised representative of the Company and appearing since the year 1991. The petitioner filed the objection. However, vide order dated 14.8.2000 the Labour Court debarred the appearance of Sri S.C. Saxena, Advocate saying that he was a legal practitioner and could not appear in view of Section 6-I of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order by way of Writ Petition No. 42503 of 2000. The said writ petition claimed to be pending. After 14.8.2000, the petitioner’s Company was prevented from representing its case through its authorised representative Sri S.C. Saxena, Advocate. After 14.8.2000, the date was fixed on 28.2.2000 for filing the documents and thereafter the date was fixed for 13.9.2000. On 13.9.2000, the petitioner filed an application seeking time to seek its remedy. However, the petitioner filed the documents in compliance of the order of the Court. He submitted that on that day it was not possible to cross-examine the workman’s evidence and to produce its own evidence. Further on 13.9.2000 the Company filed two documents, namely certified standing orders of the Company and photo copy of the administrative instructions on the subject-maintenance of records. The petitioner’s application for seeking time was rejected by the Court on 13.9.2000 and the award was given. 6. Further on 13.9.2000 the Company filed two documents, namely certified standing orders of the Company and photo copy of the administrative instructions on the subject-maintenance of records. The petitioner’s application for seeking time was rejected by the Court on 13.9.2000 and the award was given. 6. Heard Sri S.D. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shayam Narain, assisted by Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 and learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties No. 1 and 2. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted as follows : 1. The reference drawn by the State Government under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act is invalid. He placed reliance on the judgment of this Court dated 29.9.1997 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13936 of 1995, HAL v. State of U.P. and others, A 12/99 at 113 and the decision of the Apex Court in C.A. 5655 of 2006, HAL v. HAL Employees Union and others, dated 4.12.2006. 2. The dispute was raised after 21 years was highly belated. The delay was not properly explained; no proof of illness claimed by respondent No. 3 exists on record. The respondent No. 3 did not disclose the date when he regained health. Reliance is placed on the following decisions : (1) Inder Singh & Sons Ltd. v. Their Workmen, (1961) 2 FLR 583. (2) Chairman, Railway Board and others v. Chandrima Das (Mrs) and others, (2002) 2 SCC465. (3) Haryana State Coop. Land Development Bank v. Neelam, (2005) 5 SCC 91 . (4) Assistant Executive Engineer v. Sri Shivalinga, (2002 (92) FLR 601). 3. Award has been given ex-parte. The petitioner authorised representative was appearing since beginning i.e. 28.2.1991. He was debarred on 14.8.2000. The petitioner’s adjournment application for genuine grounds was rejected. The petitioner was totally denied opportunity to cross-examine respondent No. 3. The award was passed after two days before the date fixed in the writ petition challenging the order dated 14.8.2000. 4. The respondent No. 3 abandoned his service. He did not prove any justifiable reason for abandonment. His termination is valid. Reliance is placed on the following decision : (i) Ajit Kumar Nag v. General Manager, (2005) 7 SCC 764 . 5. The award is wholly perverse. Admittedly, the petitioner’s establishment came into existence in 1964. However, the Labour Court has held that the respondent No. 3 was employed in 1962. His termination is valid. Reliance is placed on the following decision : (i) Ajit Kumar Nag v. General Manager, (2005) 7 SCC 764 . 5. The award is wholly perverse. Admittedly, the petitioner’s establishment came into existence in 1964. However, the Labour Court has held that the respondent No. 3 was employed in 1962. There is no documentary evidence in support of the case of the respondent No. 3. 6. At any rate respondent No. 3 was not entitled to be reinstated with or without continuity either in 2000 or now, he having not worked for HAL since 1967. Reliance is placed on the following decisions : (1) Ras Behari v. Haryana Agricultural University through Vice-Chancellor, Hissar and others, (1987) 2 SCC 543 . (2) Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn. and another v. Mulu Amra, (1995) Supp. (4) SCC 548. (3) Rolston John v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court and others, (1995) Supp (4) SCC 549 (Para 2 & 8). 7. At any rate respondent is not entitled for back wages. Reliance is placed on the following decision : (i) U.P. State Brassware Corporation Ltd. and another v. Udainarain Pandey, (2006 (108) FLR 201). 8. Learned Counsel for the opposite party relied upon the decisions of the Labour Court and further placed reliance on the following decisions : (1) Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union v. State of Bihar and others, A.I.R. 1970 SC, 82 (Paras-4,5 & 6). (2) Air India Statutory Corporation etc. v. United Labour Union and others, reported in A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 645 (Para-28) (3) Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others v. National Union Water Front Workers and others, (2001 (91) F.L.R. 182) (Para-43) (4) Y.B. Patil and others v. Y.L. Patil, AIR 1977 SC 392 (5) Sapan Kumar Pandit v. U.P. State Electricity Board and others, 2001 (90) F.L.R. 754 (6) M/s Nicks (India) Tools v. Ram Surat and another, (2004 (103) F.L.R.-102) (Para-11) (7) Gokaraju Rangaraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 1473 (Para-15) (8) M/s. Beopar Sahayak (P) Ltd. and others v. Vishwa Nath and others, AIR 1987 SC 2111 (9) State of Maharashtra v. Labour Law Practitioners’ Association and others, AIR 1998 SC 1233 (10) High Court of Gujarat and another v. Gujarat Kishan Mazdoor Panchayat and others, (2003) 4 SCC 712 (Para-17) (11) M/s Poysha Industrial Company Ltd., Ghaziabad v. State of U.P. and others, 1985 Lab IC 1683. 9. 9. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I have perused the impugned order. 10. The petitioner company belong to Central Government Public Sector and was fully controlled and managed by the Central Government engaged in the manufacture of sophisticated aircraft and other defence equipments and caters to the Ministry of Defence in India. 11. In my opinion, present writ petition can be allowed only on the ground that the reference made by the State Government under Section 4-K of the Act was invalid. The controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of petitioner itself in Civil Appeal No. 5655 of 2006, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. Hindustan Aeronautics Employees’ Union and another. The decision of the Apex Court read as follows : “Leave granted. The principal question which arises for consideration is as to whether the State of Uttar Pradesh was the appropriate Government for making a reference of the industrial dispute raised by the respondent-Union. The question is no longer res-integra in view of the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others v. National Union Waterfront Workers and others, (2001) 7 SCC 1 as also a three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in appellant’s own case v. Hindustan Aero Canteen K. Sangh and others, Civil Appeal No. 3659/2002. In view of the aforementioned pronouncements of this Courts we are of the opinion that the High Court was not correct in refusing to interfere with the award of the Industrial Tribunal. We, therefore, set aside the impugned award as also the judgment of the High Court leaving the merit of the matter open. All the remedies of the respondent indisputably shall remain open. The appeal is allowed.” 12. Learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 13936 of 1995, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. State of U.P. and others, in its order dated 29.9.1997 held as follows : “In my view, therefore, the petitioner’s contention that in the case of the petitioner the appropriate Government was the Central Government is correct and the Government of Uttar Pradesh had no jurisdiction to refer the dispute for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal.” 13. In view of the above, writ petition is allowed. In view of the above, writ petition is allowed. The impugned award dated 10.10.2000 given by the Prescribed Authority Labour Court (III) U.P., Kanpur in Industrial Disputes Case No. 1 of 1991 is quashed. There shall be no order as to costs. ————