JUDGMENT Heard Mr. Pankaj Miglani, the learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. J.C. Pandey, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 and Mr. P.C. Bisht, the learned Brief Holder for the State-respondents no. 1, 2 & 3. 2. The present Special Appeal arises out of the Judgment dated 16th July, 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge, allowing the writ petition and quashing the Reference order dated 27th July, 2007. The fact leading to the filing of the writ petition is that an industrial dispute was raised by the workmen. There was some delay in raising the dispute. The Conciliation Officer, after considering the matter, condoned the delay in raising the industrial dispute. Against this order the employers filed writ petition No. 2933 of 2001. It transpires that during the pendency of the writ petition, the conciliation proceedings concluded and, consequent upon the failure report, the State Government referred the dispute for adjudication by an order dated 27th July, 2007. This order was challenged by the employers by filing writ petition no. 46 of 2008. Both the writ petitions were clubbed together and allowed by a judgment dated 16th July, 2008. The learned Single Judge, while referring to the provision of Section 2(k) of the U.P. Industrial Dispute Act, held that no industrial dispute existed and that the dispute raised by the workmen was not an industrial dispute and accordingly quashed the Reference order. 3. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge had erred in placing reliance upon the provision of Section 2(k) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, which has nothing to do in so far as the existence of an industrial dispute is concerned. Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act defines “Industry”, whereas the learned Single Judge ought to have considered the provision of Section 2(l) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, which defines “Industrial Dispute”. Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act defines “Industry”, whereas the learned Single Judge ought to have considered the provision of Section 2(l) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, which defines “Industrial Dispute”. The said provision is quoted hereunder as : “(l) ‘Industrial Dispute’ means any dispute or difference between employers and employers, or between employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the term of employment or with the conditions of labour, of any person; but does not include an industrial dispute concerning – (i) any industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government, or (ii) such controlled industry as may be specified in this behalf by Central Government, or (iii) banking and insurance companies as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, or (iv) a mine or an oil-field;” 4. A perusal of the aforesaid provision would indicate that an industrial dispute includes any dispute or difference between an employer and an employee, which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment. In the present case, the dispute referred for adjudication is with regard to the non-granting of the time-bound promotion to the workmen. This promotion or non-promotion is undoubtedly connected with the employment of workmen. The reference was squarely an industrial dispute. Consequently, the learned Single Judge fell in error in holding that the dispute referred, was not an industrial dispute. The learned Single Judge did not consider the provision of Section 2(l), which also includes matters connected with the employment. 5. In view of the aforesaid, the order of the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. 6. The learned counsel for the employers contended that Conciliation Officer committed an error in condoning the delay and that old and stale dispute could not be condoned nor could it be referred. We find from the record that no opportunity was given to the workman to file his counter affidavit against the allegations made in the writ petition. It is noteworthy to mention here that an industrial dispute, could be raised at any time under section 4-K of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act provided an industrial dispute existed or was apprehended. We find from the record that no opportunity was given to the workman to file his counter affidavit against the allegations made in the writ petition. It is noteworthy to mention here that an industrial dispute, could be raised at any time under section 4-K of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act provided an industrial dispute existed or was apprehended. The fact as to whether an industrial dispute existed or was apprehended is an essential fact which the State Government has to reply, which this Court finds that no opportunity was given to the State Government to file a reply. 7. In view of the aforesaid, we allow the Special Appeal and set aside the order and judgment of the learned Single Judge and both the writ petitions are remitted again to the learned Single Judge to decide the matter afresh. We direct the learned counsel for the workmen as well as the State Government to file their respective replies to the writ petition within six weeks from today. The writ petition would be listed before the appropriate Court thereafter for disposal. We further direct that the proceedings before the Labour Court will continue, but the award shall not be delivered till the disposal of the writ petition.