ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the notification of the Government dated 11.12.2006, Annexure-1, whereunder dispute between petitioner and Respondent No. 2 Union was referred for adjudication by the Labour Court, Begusarai under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Petitioner is also aggrieved by the ex parte Award dated 8.11.2007 (Annexure-2) passed in Reference Case No. 01/2007 pursuant to notification dated 11.12.2006, Annexure-1. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that reference was made in December, 2006 which was registered by Labour Court in January, 2007 and thereafter notice was issued to the petitioner but without securing its appearance ex parte Award was passed which is wholly illegal as according to the petitioner conciliation proceeding having taken place at Darbhanga where the Unit in question is situate the jurisdiction to try the reference vested in Labour Court, Muzaffarpur and not in Labour Court, Begusarai. It is further submitted that earlier during the period between 18.8.1997 till 28.11.2005 petitioner was in possession of the Unit in terms of the revival scheme framed by the Government of India and approved by the Supreme Court which would appear from orders of the Supreme Court dated 8.7.1996 and 1.5.1997, Annexures-4, 5. While the petitioner proceeded with the rehabilitation work the Company went into liquidation under the orders of the Calcutta High Court dated 24.11.2004 (Annexure-24) and during the period between 28.11.2005-17.5.2011 the Unit remained in possession of the Official Liquidator. The order of winding up was, however, set aside under orders dated 3.5.2011 (Annexure-25), whereafter petitioner again came in possession of the Unit on 18.5.2011. It is submitted with reference to the aforesaid dates that on the date of reference petitioner was not in possession of the Unit as such it had no information about the reference case and the impugned Award is fit to be set aside on the ground that the same is not only without jurisdiction but also rendered without notice to the petitioner. It appears from the order-sheet of the Labour Court dated 13.5.2007, Annexure-29 that notice was issued to the Management which refused to accept the notice whereafter the matter proceeded ex parte and the impugned Award was passed. 4. It appears from the order-sheet of the Labour Court dated 13.5.2007, Annexure-29 that notice was issued to the Management which refused to accept the notice whereafter the matter proceeded ex parte and the impugned Award was passed. 4. From perusal of the different orders passed by the Supreme Court, Annexure-4, 5, 18 it is evident that a writ petition was filed for rehabilitation of the Unit in question and pursuant to the orders of the Supreme Court a rehabilitation scheme was framed. In the light of the scheme framed by the Government duly approved by the Supreme Court M/s Nouveau Capital & Finance Ltd. (for short “NCFL) came in possession of the Unit on 18.8.1997 and remained in such possession until 28.11.2005 when according to the petitioner Unit came into possession of the Official Liquidator of Calcutta High Court pursuant to the winding up order passed by the Calcutta High Court on 24.11.2004, Annexure-24 and again when the winding up order was set aside by the Company Judge of Calcutta High Court under orders dated 3.5.2011, Annexure-25 with reference to the orders of the Supreme Court dated 8.7.1996, 1.5.1997, Annexure-4, 5 the Management of the Unit again came in possession of NCFL on 17.05.2011. From the materials on record it, however, does not appear that the Official Liquidator of Calcutta High Court came in possession of the Unit during the period between 28.11.2005 till 17.05.2011 pursuant to the winding up order passed by the Calcutta High Court. In my opinion, therefore, the Management (NCFL) had the information about the proceedings being taken at the instance of the Union may be in the Supreme Court or in the Labour Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the Award was passed on 08.11.2007 and possession of the Unit having been restored on 17.5.2011 petitioner learnt from the press report dated 7.6.2012, Annexure-31 that warrant has been issued against it for failure to comply the Award dated 8.11.2007 whereafter enquiry was made and having learnt about the Award steps were taken to obtain relief in the criminal case. 5. 5. Petitioner having taken steps for obtaining relief in the criminal case should have invited the attention of the Labour Court that it had no information about the proceeding taken in the Labour Court during the period between 28.11.2005 – 17.5.2011 when the Award dated 8.11.2007 was passed as during the said period Unit was under control of Official Liquidator of the Calcutta High Court pursuant to winding up order dated 24.11.2004 passed by the Calcutta High Court. I am not inclined to examine the aforesaid submission as there is nothing on record to indicate that Unit and its Management ever came in possession of the Official Liquidator of the Calcutta High Court during the period between 28.11.2005–17.5.2011 when the Award dated 8.11.2007 was passed. It appears from the winding up order passed by the Calcutta High Court dated 24.11.2004, Annexure-24 itself that Official Liquidator was directed not to take possession of the assets for a period of two weeks from date. No material has been placed along with the petition to suggest that Official Liquidator took possession of the Unit after passage of two weeks of the order dated 24.11.2004. From perusal of the order dated 3.5.2011, Annexure-25 passed by the Calcutta High Court setting aside the winding up order dated 24.11.2004 it appears that considering the orders of the Supreme Court of India dated 8.7.1996, 1.5.1997, Annexure-4,5 the winding up order was set aside as the applicant before the Company Judge NCFL had moved the Calcutta High Court pursuant to the liberty granted by the Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 672 of 2004 and undertook to repay the debts of the secured creditors, workmen and the petitioning creditor. There was, however, dispute about payment of Rs. 5 lac on account of security service perhaps for the reason that Unit in question during the period of liquidation remained in possession of the NCFL pursuant to the earlier orders of the Supreme Court dated 8.7.1996 and 1.5.1997. It further appears from the service report of the Postal Peon dated 8.2.2007, Annexure-28 that Management (NCFL) refused to accept the notice on 8.2.2007 which is not only incorporated over the envelope, Annexure-28 but also in the order-sheet of the Labour Court dated 28.2.2007 and 13.5.2007, Annexure-29 and the matter was fixed for ex parte hearing. 6. It further appears from the service report of the Postal Peon dated 8.2.2007, Annexure-28 that Management (NCFL) refused to accept the notice on 8.2.2007 which is not only incorporated over the envelope, Annexure-28 but also in the order-sheet of the Labour Court dated 28.2.2007 and 13.5.2007, Annexure-29 and the matter was fixed for ex parte hearing. 6. The other submission that Labour Court, Begusarai had no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute and pass Award dated 8.11.2007 should also have been raised before the Labour Court, Begusarai informing the Labour Court that conciliation having taken place at Darbhanga, Labour Court at Muzaffarpur has the jurisdiction as it is well settled that conciliation only takes place where the dispute has arisen and the Unit is situate at Darbhanga and conciliation to settle the dispute having taken place at Darbhanga Reference should have been made to Labour Court, Muzaffarpur and not Begusarai and in that view of the matter Reference should have been returned. Petitioner i.e. NCFL having ignored the proceedings taken before the Labour Court has chosen to assail the Award dated 8.11.2007 after about seven years. In such circumstances, I reject the submissions noted above in view of my findings recorded in Paragraphs 5, 6 above. 7. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.