Judgment :- 1. The strange prayer made by the petitioner union in this writ petition is to quash the order of reference made by the second respondent, Union Territory of Puducherry vide G.O.Rt.No.121/2004/Lab/AIL/J, Labour Department dated 23.9.2004 and consequently to direct the second respondent to transfer I.D.No.33 of 2004 (L) pending before the II Additional Labour Court, Puducherry, the third respondent herein to the Industrial Tribunal, Puducherry for proper adjudication. 2. When the matter came up for hearing on 24.1.2011, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for Union Territory of Puducherry took notice for the respondents 2 and 3. Subsequently, the first respondent management was served with notice and is represented by counsel. 3. The short point that arises for consideration herein is as to whether for want of jurisdiction, the reference made for adjudication before the labour court can be transferred to the Industrial Tribunal? 4. The grievance projected by the petitioner union was that since the reference relates to closure of the establishment of the first respondent at Sedarapet, Pondicherry, was justified and it is the matter covered by item 10 of the III Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, the reference is to be made before the Industrial Tribunal as per Section 10(1)(d) of Industrial Disputes Act. 5. Mr.S.Ravindran for M/s.T.S.Gopalan, learned counsel for the first respondent points out that in the dispute raised by the petitioner union, they have indicated that the total number of employees affected by closure was 67 workers and therefore, in the light of first proviso to Section 10(1), the Government made the reference to the Labour Court and the dispute has been taken on file by the third respondent as I.D.No.33 of 2004 and is pending adjudication. In the counter statement, they have not taken any plea with regard to want of jurisdiction of the Labour court. 6. It is the legal position that as per first proviso to Section 10(1), "Where the dispute relates to any matter specified in the Third Schedule and is not likely to affect more than one hundred workmen, it can be referred to a Labour Court". 6. It is the legal position that as per first proviso to Section 10(1), "Where the dispute relates to any matter specified in the Third Schedule and is not likely to affect more than one hundred workmen, it can be referred to a Labour Court". Though Mr.N.S.Sivakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the factory is having more than 100 workers; they are likely to be affected by closure of the establishment and therefore number of workers likely to be affected is considered and not number of workers involved in the dispute, it is an unnecessary contention raised on the side of the petitioner. Therefore, it is suffice that the order of reference was correctly made to the Labour Court as per first proviso to Section 10(1) of I.D.Act. 7. In so far as the second prayer made by the petitioner that the case in I.D.No.33 of 2004 pending on the file of the third respondent herein, will be transferred to the Industrial Tribunal, Puducherry, is concerned, the same also does not stand for the reason that as per Section 33-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, the power to transfer the reference from one court to other is only vested with the appropriate government and not with this court. Therefore, the second prayer made by the petitioner cannot be countenanced. Considering the facts that number of employees likely to be affected and I.D.No.33 of 2004 is kept pending adjudication for more than 7 years, such issue is to be generously considered. Hence, the petitioner has not made out any case and the writ petition is misconceived. 8. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.