JUDGMENT Hon’ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.—Heard Sri Ram Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.K.Upadhyay, learned standing counsel for the respondent No. 1. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 18.10.2014. passed by respondent No. 1 in Adjudication Case No. 175 of 2012 is wholly arbitrary and illegal. He submits that the jurisdiction of respondent No. 1 is a referred jurisdiction and, therefore, the respondent No. 1 cannot travel beyond the terms of reference. Under the circumstances, the respondent No. 1 has committed a manifest error of law to hold that he lacks territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. 3. Learned standing counsel supports the impugned order. He submits that even no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner, inasmuch as, the respondent No. 1 has made it open to the petitioner to raise the dispute before the competent authority/Court. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and with their consent, this writ petition is being finally decided. 5. Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that the petitioner was appointed as a Store Keeper in the establishment of M/s. B.S.B. K. Engineers(P) Ltd. L-8, Green Park Extension, New Delhi, which is the Head Office and under control of which there were several working places. The petitioner worked at several sites and lastly he was posted at the site of the said employer at Jhalavad, Rajasthan. The service of the petitioner was terminated by the aforesaid employer by an order dated 16.5.2001. A copy of the order was sent to the petitioner as well as Corporate Office of the Company at Noida (U.P.). 6. In the impugned order a finding of fact have been recorded that the service of the petitioner was controlled from the head office at New Delhi, salary was also paid to him from Delhi Head Office, provident fund was deposited at Delhi. His leave account, salary details, personal records, E.P.F. account and other records were maintained at Delhi Office and his services were directly controlled by Delhi Office. The petitioner used to report directly to Sri P.S. Rathore at Delhi Office. The establishment is registered in Delhi. The application for appointment was submitted by the petitioner in Delhi Office and the letter of appointment was also issued by that office. The petitioner used to report directly to Sri P.S. Rathore at Delhi Office. The establishment is registered in Delhi. The application for appointment was submitted by the petitioner in Delhi Office and the letter of appointment was also issued by that office. He was never posted at any place in the State of U.P. 7. On these facts the respondent No. 1 came to the conclusion that no cause of action arose within the State of Uttar Pradesh. The respondent No. 1 held that he has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter on merits. 8. Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) reads as under : “where the State Government is of opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, it may at any time by order in writing refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with, or relevant to, the dispute to a Labour Court if the matter of industrial dispute is one of those contained in the First Schedule, or to a Tribunal if the matter of dispute is one contained in the First Schedule or the Second Schedule for adjudication. Provided that where the dispute relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule and is not likely to affect more than one hundred workmen, the State Government may, if it so thinks fit, make the reference to a Labour Court.” 9. Section-1(2) of the Act, provides that the Act shall extend to the whole of Uttar Pradesh. 10. Thus, the labour Court under the Act, can entertain and decide matters falling within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of U.P. 11. The employer has several sites (working place) in different States of the country. The workmen are controlled from the head office at Delhi. They, including the petitioner were supervised from the Delhi Office. The salary, E.P.F. and other account etc. of the petitioner and other workmen have been maintained and governed by the Head Office at Delhi. The letter of appointment as well as the letter of termination of service of the petitioner have been issued from Delhi Office. They, including the petitioner were supervised from the Delhi Office. The salary, E.P.F. and other account etc. of the petitioner and other workmen have been maintained and governed by the Head Office at Delhi. The letter of appointment as well as the letter of termination of service of the petitioner have been issued from Delhi Office. The basis of dispute, i.e., letter of termination from service dated 16.5.2011 was issued from Delhi Office, which can only be said to be giving rise to industrial dispute and, therefore, only the State Government within the territories of which the said head office is situate could have competence to make a reference under the relevant provisions of the Act, governing the field of industrial dispute.Thus, the Government of Uttar Pradesh is not the appropriate Government. Consequently, the reference made under the U.P. Act, was wholly without jurisdiction. Under the circumstances, there is no infirmity in the impugned order. 12. If the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted on the facts of the present case, then the result would be that the States where the workmen of the respondent-employer are not even working, the Government of that State may make a reference and the employer may face conflicting awards of different labour Courts situate in different States. 13. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the view that while deciding the issue of territorial jurisdiction, labour Court has to keep in mind that office of the employer is controlling the services of the workman/workmen where the dispute has substantially arisen. 14. In the case of Association of Medical representatives (M & V) v. Industrial Tribunal, Madhya Pradesh, Indore and others, AIR 1967 MP 117, the Court relied upon a judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Lalbhai Tricum Lal Mills Ltd. v. D.M. Vin, AIR 1955 Bombay 463 and held that the reference can be made by the Government in whose jurisdiction the industry was situate and not where the employee was working. 15. 15. In the case of Superintending Engineer v. Workmen of Machkund Hydroelectric Project and another, AIR 1960 Ori 205 , a Division Bench of Orissa High Court examined the similar issue and held that in such a situation where the industry is situate in other State and the employees are working in another State, it is not possible that both the Government could make a reference nor it is possible to make a joint reference by the two States. The test that would determine the competence of the appropriate Government, is where the industry substantially was situate. 16. In the case of J. and J. Dechane Distributors v. State of Kerala and others, (1974) 2 LLJ 9 (supra), a Division Bench of Kerala High Court held that there must be a nexus between the industrial dispute and the territory of the State for making the reference. There can be only one Government which can be regarded as an Appropriate Government for the purpose of making a reference under Section 10(1)(c) of the Central Act. Thus, the test that would determine as to which Appropriate Government has competence to make a reference, is where the dispute substantially arose and in case his services are controlled from other State and the order giving rise to the industrial dispute if passed from the said State, only that State will have competence to make a reference. 17. In the case of M/s. Lipton Ltd. and another v. Their Employees, AIR 1959 SC 676 , Hon’ble Supreme Court examined the issue in a case where the industry was situated in Delhi but the employees were working outside. They were controlled from Delhi Office; received their salaries from Delhi Office and have been supervised from there. The matter of their leaves, transfer etc. were also governed from Delhi. Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it is the Delhi Government, which was Appropriate Government to make a reference to the labour Court and not the Government of the State where the workman had been working. 18. The matter of their leaves, transfer etc. were also governed from Delhi. Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it is the Delhi Government, which was Appropriate Government to make a reference to the labour Court and not the Government of the State where the workman had been working. 18. In the case of Workmen of Shri Rangavilas Motors (P) Ltd. and another v. Shri Rangavilas Motors (P) Ltd. and others, AIR 1967 SC 1040 , Hon’ble Supreme Court held that for determining the competence of appropriate Government to make a reference, the test is where the industrial dispute arose/sponsored, i.e., the nexus between the dispute and the territory of the State is the relevant factor. While determining the issue, the Court placed reliance upon its earlier judgment in Indian Cable Co. Ltd. v. Its Workmen, (1962) Supp.3 SCR 589, wherein the dispute has arisen if there is a separate establishment and the workman is working in that establishment, the dispute woule arise at that place and in that situation, the nexus between the dispute and the territory of the State may be relevant. 19. In the case of Anglo-French Drug Co. (Eastern) Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Allahabad and others, 2004 (2) AWC 1544 (Paragraph 43 and 45), a Division Bench of this Court summarised the judgment on the issue and held as under : “43. Thus, in view of the above, the legal position can be summarized that the law does not envisage a joint reference by two States or reference by several States simultaneously. There may be an establishment having its workmen working in different States of the country, if they are controlled from the Head Office and they are supervised from there, and their salaries, transfers, leaves etc. are being governed from that office and the order giving rise to the industrial dispute, if passed from that office, only the State within those territories that office situate, would have the competence to make a reference. If it is held otherwise in a given case, all States wherever the workmen are working, would have a competence to make a reference and the employer may face the conflicting awards of different labour Courts situate in different States, therefore, while deciding the issue, it is to be kept in mind as to which was the office controlling the services of the workmen and where the dispute has substantially arisen. There has to be a nexus between the industrial disputes and the territory of the State competent to make a reference to the labour Court. 45. Be that as it may, as there is nothing on record to show that the services of the respondent-employee were being controlled or he was being supervised by any office having an office in State of U.P., it is beyond imagination to hold that the industrial dispute, i.e., termination of the services of the respondent-employee, had substantially arisen in the State of U.P. Mere receipt of the termination order will not confer upon the Government of U.P. to make a reference and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is difficult to hold that the Government of U.P. would be an Appropriate Government and, thus, the reference itself is liable to be quashed. 20. In view of the above discussions and the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above judgments, and the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Anglo-French Drug Co. (Eastern) Ltd. (supra), I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The writ petition is wholly misconceived and, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. 21. In result, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.