JUDGMENT Honble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard Counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging legality and correctness of the order dated 12.9.2007 appended as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. 3. By the aforesaid order, the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Mirzapur Region, Pipri, Sonbhadra is claimed to have illegally superseded the previous reference and amendment made in the reference order dated 8.4.2008 by the Labour Commissioner in the garb of amending aforesaid reference order. 4. It appears that previous reference order has been amended by the Dy. Labour Commissioner by deleting the name of M/s A.B.C. Limited and in place thereof name of M/s. A.B.C. Export, which is a partnership concern, has been substituted. 5. Contention of the Counsel for petitioner is that the aforesaid order dated 8.4.2008 passed by respondent No. 3 is without any basis for the reasons : (a) that establishment of the petitioner M/s. A.B.C. Export is situated at Imalaha, Mirzapur which was closed with effect from 1.4.2004 and closure notice is also appended as Annexure-3 to the writ petition; (b) that an industrial dispute was raised by the workman-respondent No. 5 against (1) M/s. A.B.C. Limited, and (2) M/s A.B.C. Limited Kray Kendra and not against the petitioner; (c) that the petitioners in their reply to application of respondent No. 5 filed an objection before the Regional Conciliation Officer on 26.4.1999 specifically averring that the petitioner has no concern or relation with M/s A.B.C. Limited or M/s. A.B.C. Kray Kendra and that dispute between the petitioner and aforesaid concern has no nexus with the partnership firm of petitioner M/s. A.B.C. Export; and (d) that the workman has no relation with any of the parties named in the application and that inspite of objections, the workman did not amend his application under Section 2-A before Regional Conciliation Officer impleading the petitioners and if they were in fact his employers, he ought to have amended his application at that stage. 6. It is stated that on reference, summons were wrongly sent by the labour Court at the petitioners’ address though M/s. A.B.C. Limited and M/s. A.B.C. Kray Kendra have different address than the petitioner, as such the petitioner filed objections before the labour Court inter alia that petitioner is neither named in the reference order nor has any relation with the workman in the case. 7. 7. It appears that after hearing the parties i.e. the petitioner and workman, the labour Court vide order dated 28.11.2006 held that there is no relation between the parties named in the order of reference namely M/s. A.B.C. Limited, M/s. A.B.C. Kray Kendra and M/s. A.B.C. Exports which are independent organisations having no relations with each other and that there is no averment on behalf of the workman that the parties named in the reference order have been acquired or merged with the petitioner firm M/s. A.B.C. Exports, therefore, petitioner’s firm cannot be impleaded as party on the basis of possibility, and application of the workman was accordingly rejected. Findings of the labour Court in this regard are as under : ^^eSaus i{kdkjksa ds fo}ku izfrfufèk;ksa dk rdZ ,oa i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;kA lanHkkZnsk esa lsok i{k fuEufyf[kr ukfer gSa % 1- es0 ,0ch0lh0fy0] yky fMXxh] ehjtkiqjA 2- es0 ,0ch0lh0 fy0 Ø; dsUæ] Hknksgh] tuin&lar jfonkluxjA vkifÙkdrkZ ds vuqlkj mldh QeZ ,0ch0lh0 ,DliksVZ] fetkZiqjA lanFkknsk esa ukfer i{k ,oa vkifÙkdrkZ vyx&vyx laLFkk gS vkSj vyx&vyx LFkku ij LFkkfir gS tSlk fd vkifÙk ls izdV gS vkSj i{kdkjksa dh vksj ls fookn esa ugha gSA Jfed i{k dh vksj ls ;g rdZ x;k fd lsok;kstu i{k ds ekfyd lh0 ih0 xqIrk gSa vkSj vc mUgksaus QeZ dk uke cny fn;k gSa bl dkj.k og fofèkor i{kdkj gSa bl lanHkZ esa mUgksaus Jek;qDr] m0 iz0 dk vknsk Hkh izLrqr fd;k ijUrq mDr vknsk dh QksVks izfr izLrqr dh xbZ gS bl vknsk esa ,slk dFku fd;k x;k fd mijksDr lHkh QesZa ,d gh O;fDr ls lacafèkr gSaA ;fn ,slh fLFkfr Fkh rks lanHkknsk vfèkdkjh dk mÙkjnkf;Ro Fkk fd lsok;kstdksa esa ,0ch0lh0 ,DliksVZ] ehjtkiqj dks Hkh i{kdkj cukrk ijUrq ,slk ugha fd;k x;kA bl dkj.k ml vfHkys[k dk ykHk Jfed dks ugha fn;k tk ldrkA Jfed dh vksj ls ,slk dksbZ dFku ugha gS vFkok lekdsfrd dj fy;k gS vFkok mudk QeZ LFkkukUrfjr dj fn;k x;k gSA vfHk0 fo0 esa vkS0 fo0 vfèk0 1947 ds varxZr u;k i{kdkjksa dks i{kdkj cukus gsrq ,slk vko;d gS fd ,sls vfHkfu.kZ; dks izHkkoh fd;k tk lds rHkh vfrfjDr i{kdkj c<+k, tk ldrs gSa ysfdu ,sls i{kdkj cukus ds fy, lanHkknsk esa ukfer lsok;kstd ,oa QeZ ,0ch0lh0 ,DliksVZ ,slh vyx&vyx laLFkk,a gS ftudk ,d nwljs ls dksbZ lacaèk ugha gSA Hkfo"; esa Hkh buds ,d gksus dk izu ugha gSA ;fn ,slk lEHko gS rc Hkkjrh; dEiuh vfèkfu;e ds varxZr dk;Zokgh fd;k tkuk vko;d gSA bl izdkj ek= laHkkouk ds vkèkkj ij Hkh ,0ch0lh0 ,DliksVZ dks i{kdkj ugha cuk;k tk ldrkA bl lanHkZ esa iSjh bEIykbt ;wfu;u cuke tt ldssUM baMfLV~;y osLV caxky dydÙkk ,oa vU;] 1997 [kaM 77 ,Q,yvkj ist 430@426 ij fookl O;Dr djrk gw¡A mijksDr rF;ksa ds lanHkZ esa ,0ch0lh0 ,DliksVZ yky fMXxh ds fo:) uksfVl tkjh djuk ,oa i{kdkj Lohdkj djrs gq;s dk;Zokgh djuk U;k;kspr ugha gS vr% mUgsa lanHkknsk ls ¼foeqDr@fMLpktZ½ fd;k tkrk gSA g0 ih0v0 28-11-2006** 8. Counsel for the petitioner has placed Annexure-11 before this Court which is statement of demand by the workman dated 22.5.2006 filed on affidavit in adjudication case No. 87 of 2003 wherein the workman has stated that he was appointed by M/s A.B.C. Hitkari Enterprises and after sometime its name was changed as A.B.C. Limited which after his termination was changed to M/s. A.B.C. Overseas Ltd. 9. He then urged that even from the aforesaid statement of demand by the workman it is apparent that he never claimed to be an employee of M/s. ABS Exports which has now been impleaded/substituted and deleting the real employer from the order of reference on an application filed by the workman before the Deputy Labour Commissioner dated 20.4.2007 containing misrepresentation of facts wherein it has wrongly been mentioned that workman had raised dispute against M/s. A.B.C. Exports, Imalaha, Mirzapur which is against the record; that a perusal of the application filed before Deputy Labour Commissioner appended as Annexure-4 shows that workman had made M/s. A.B.C. Limited, Lal Diggi, Mirzapur and M/s. A.B.C. Limited, Kray Kendra, Bhadohi as party and not impleaded petitioner M/s. A.B.C. Exports in spite of the fact that they had specifically denied any relationship with them which were independent organisations and also the fact that they had no relationship of master and servant with respondent No. 5. 10. The Counsel for petitioner emphatically argued that the order of reference is in supersession of earlier order of reference which could not have been done as parties can be added or amended in view of Section 10(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act (Central), 1947. He has relied upon paragraph 10 of the judgment in State of Maharashtra v. Kamani Employees’ Union and others, 1975 Lab. I.C. 387 and upon State of Bihar v. Ganguli (D.N.) and others, 1958 (2) LLJ 634 . 11. From perusal of decision in State of Maharashtra v. Kamani Employees’ Union and others, it appears that Court has clarified meaning of supersession and withdrawal of reference order in paragraph 10 of the said judgment. I.C. 387 and upon State of Bihar v. Ganguli (D.N.) and others, 1958 (2) LLJ 634 . 11. From perusal of decision in State of Maharashtra v. Kamani Employees’ Union and others, it appears that Court has clarified meaning of supersession and withdrawal of reference order in paragraph 10 of the said judgment. Whereas the case of State of Bihar v. Ganguli (D.N.) and others pertains to cancellation of the order of reference and it is in that context the Court considered Sections 7, 10, 12, 15, 17-A and 33 read with Section 21 of the General Clauses Act regarding power of the appropriate Government to cancel, withdraw and supersede the reference already made and which is pending adjudication. 12. In my considered opinion, case of the petitioner is distinguishable from the facts of the aforesaid cases only on the ground that in this case the petitioner totally disclaims any relationship of master and servant with the workman-respondent No. 5, and hence even if the order of reference is amended or superseded or withdrawn, it will have no effect upon the case of the petitioner if he is not employer of the workman concerned. 13. In the circumstances and for the reasons stated above, without entering into the merits and the technicalities, this writ petition is being finally disposed of at this stage by directing the labour Court to frame a specific issue with regard to the question as to whether the petitioner was employer of respondent No. 5 or not, and then proceed with other issues regarding supersession/withdrawal of order of reference and the main reference. No order as to costs. ————