JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. 1. Heard Mr. Clerk, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Barot, learned advocate for respondent No. 2 as well as Mr. Aloria, learned AGP for respondent No. 1 2. In present petition, the petitioner has prayed, inter alia, that : "26(a) Quashing and setting aside the order dated 10.1.2007 amending the order of reference dated 20.12.2003 and joining the petitioner company as first party No. 2 in Reference (LCK) No. 673 of 2003." 3. From above quoted relief prayed for by the petitioner, it emerges that the petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No. 1 Labour Commissioner whereby an order of reference forwarded to the learned Labour Court referring industrial dispute between present respondent No. 2 Mr. R.K. Chaudhary and a company named M/s. Diamant Carbon & Graphite Products Ltd. came to be amended and present petitioner, i.e. Vesuvius India Ltd. came to be impleaded as first party No. 2. 4. The petitioner challenges the amendment in the order of reference, inter alia, that it was not party to the conciliation proceedings and that the claimant was never employed by it and neither terminated by it and on the ground that after withdrawal of the reference, second proceedings for the same dispute would not be maintainable. On the said and other grounds, the company has prayed that the order dated 10.1.2007 whereby the earlier order of reference dated 20.12.2003 came to be amended, may be set aside. 5. So as to support the said submission and request, the company has mentioned relevant facts in the petition, which read thus: "2. The respondent No. 2 herein was employed by M/s. Diamant Carbon and Graphite Products Ltd. He was dismissed from service by the said company on 23.8.1999. He raised an industrial dispute on 24.8.1999 by filing a complaint with the Asst. Commissioner of Labour. 3. The Asst. Commissioner of Labour issued notice of conciliation proceedings to M/s. Diamant Carbon and Graphite Products Ltd. on 25.8.1999. 4. Thereafter the matter was referred for adjudication by the order of reference dated 6.9.1999. 5. The said reference was numbered as Reference (LCM) No. 375 of 1999 before the Labour Court, Mehsana. The respondent No. 2 filed its statement of claim on 22.1.2000. 6. DCGP filed its written statement in the said reference on 23.3.2000. 7. 4. Thereafter the matter was referred for adjudication by the order of reference dated 6.9.1999. 5. The said reference was numbered as Reference (LCM) No. 375 of 1999 before the Labour Court, Mehsana. The respondent No. 2 filed its statement of claim on 22.1.2000. 6. DCGP filed its written statement in the said reference on 23.3.2000. 7. Thereafter the parties to the reference i.e. DCGP and the respondent No. 2 settled the matter outside the Court and the respondent No. 2 filed a pursis before the Labour Court, Mehsana Ex. 28 in Reference (LCK) No. 375 of 1999 on 26.3.2003 stating that the matter was settled outside the Court and he wished to withdraw the said reference. 8. On the basis of the said pursis, Labour Court, Kalol passed an order dated 26.3.20003 permitting the respondent No. 2 to withdraw the said reference. The said award was published by Asst. Commissioner of Labour on 26.9.2003. 9. Despite the Reference (LCK) No. 375 of 1999 having been settled and withdrawn by the respondent No. 2, the respondent No. 2 raised a fresh dispute in respect of the said subject matter. DCGP came to know about the matter only when a notice dated 4.2.2004 was received from Labour Court, Kalol in Reference (LCK) No. 673 of 2003. 10. The respondent No.2 filed his statement of claim in the said Reference (LCK) No.673 of 2003. 11. DCGP filed its written statement in Reference (LCK) No. 673 of 2003. 12. The petitioner states that the petitioner company had purchased the factory of DCGP and at present the petitioner company is operating the factory. 13. The respondent No. 2 wrote to the Asst. Commissioner of Labour on 27.11.2006 stating that he was relieved from DCGP on 1.5.2003 and that he had filed a complaint on 18.10.2003 which was referred to Labour Court under Reference (LCK) No. 673 of 2003. He further stated that CGP has changed its name to Vesuvius India Ltd. and therefore Vesuvius India Ltd. should be joined as a party to the Reference (LCK) No. 673 of 2003. 14. On 30.11.2006, the petitioner company received a notice from the respondent No. 1 stating that the respondent No. 2 had made an application to join the petitioner company in the pending Reference (LCK) No. 673 of 2003 and for that purpose the conciliation proceedings are scheduled on 12.12.2006. 14. On 30.11.2006, the petitioner company received a notice from the respondent No. 1 stating that the respondent No. 2 had made an application to join the petitioner company in the pending Reference (LCK) No. 673 of 2003 and for that purpose the conciliation proceedings are scheduled on 12.12.2006. On receiving the notice dated 30.11.2006, the petitioner company filed its reply before the respondent No. 1 on 26.12.2006. In the said reply the petitioner company pointed out that there was inordinate delay in filing the application, that respondent No. 2 was never employed in the petitioner company that the respondent No. 2 has filed this application malafide and with ulterior motive." 6. It has emerged from the record and from rival submissions by learned advocates that initially, present respondent had raised dispute with allegation that his service is illegally terminated. The said dispute was raised against a company named M/s. Diamant Carbon & Graphite Products Ltd. The dispute was registered as Reference (LCK) No. 375 of 1999. 7. From the submission by learned advocate for the respondent Mr. Barot, it appears that the said reference was withdrawn by the claimant in light of a settlement which was arrived at with the said company named M/s. Diamant Carbon & Graphite Products Ltd. 8. Mr. Barot, learned advocate would further claim that since the claimant's service was again terminated, he raised another dispute. 9. Of course, Mr. Clerk, learned advocate for the petitioner has opposed the said submission. 10. When the claimant raised another dispute with the allegation that his service is illegally terminated, appropriate Government referred the dispute vide order of reference dated 20.12.2003 which culminated in Reference (LCK) No. 673 of 2003. By the said order of reference, appropriate Government impleaded the other company, i.e. M/s. Diamant Carbon & Graphite Products Ltd. as first party (i.e. as employer of the claimant) in the reference case i.e. Reference (LCK) No. 673 of 2003. 11. About three years thereafter the claimant appears to have submitted an application with a request that present petitioner company, i.e. Vesuvius India Ltd. should also be impleaded as first party to the reference case in Reference No. 673 of 2003. 12. 11. About three years thereafter the claimant appears to have submitted an application with a request that present petitioner company, i.e. Vesuvius India Ltd. should also be impleaded as first party to the reference case in Reference No. 673 of 2003. 12. Appropriate Government considered the said request of the claimant and after considering objection of present petitioner, appropriate Government passed order dated 10.1.2007 and amended the order of reference dated 20.12.2003 and impleaded present petitioner as first party No. 2 in Reference No. 673 of 2003. 13. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said order of reference and has challenged the same on above mentioned grounds. 14. During hearing of this petition, it has emerged that before appropriate Government passed the impugned order dated 10.1.2007 and impleaded present petitioner company in Reference No. 673 of 2003, the original first party in Reference No. 673 of 2003 had already filed its written statement before the learned Labour Court. In its written statement (filed in Reference No. 673 of 2003), the original first party, i.e. M/s. Diamant Carbon & Graphite Products Ltd. raised objection against maintainability of the reference on the ground that the order of reference dated 20.12.2003 was passed without holding conciliation proceedings and also on the ground that the dispute raised by the claimant in Reference No. 375 of 1999 was settled outside the court. In this context, the said company averred and stated that: "4. The first party further raises a preliminary objection that before making the present reference the appropriate Government, i.e. the State Govt. has not held any conciliation proceedings as required by the Industrial Disputes Act. The first party has not received any notice of conciliation proceeding and straightaway the first party received the notice from Labour Court, Kalol. The first party submits that without holding the conciliation proceedings no order of reference can be passed by the appropriate Government under the Industrial Dispute Act and therefore, the present proceedings are ultravires the Industrial Dispute Act completely illegal and null and void ab initio. 5. The first party raises a further preliminary objection that the second party is trying to harass the first party raising frivolous and vexatious disputes though his case was settled outside the court as per the purshis given by the second party himself before the Labour Court, Mehsana in Reference (LCK) No. 375 of 1999. 5. The first party raises a further preliminary objection that the second party is trying to harass the first party raising frivolous and vexatious disputes though his case was settled outside the court as per the purshis given by the second party himself before the Labour Court, Mehsana in Reference (LCK) No. 375 of 1999. The second party cannot raise the same dispute again but only with a view to harassing the first party company. The second party has raised the said dispute once again. The present reference is made malafide and therefore the same deserves to be dismissed in limine." 15. The said contention in the written statement is not disputed either by present respondent No. 2 (i.e. the claimant) or respondent No. 1 (i.e. the office of Labour Commissioner). 16. In this view of the matter, it has emerged that even if the petitioner's grievance with regard to the amendment in order of reference is not taken into account at this stage, then also the original order of reference dated 20.12.2003 itself appears defective and unsustainable inasmuch as the said contention (i.e. original order of reference was passed without holding conciliation proceeding with said other company) by the said company M/s. Diamant Carbon & Graphite Products Ltd. is not denied by the workman or even the office of the Labour Commissioner and that, therefore, it becomes clear that the order of reference dated 20.12.2003 was passed without holding conciliation proceedings. 17. Under the circumstances, the said order of reference is not sustainable. 18. In this view of the matter, it would not be in interest of justice and fitness of things to allow the proceedings of Reference No. 673 of 2003 to proceed further and the objection may be considered by the learned Labour Court at the end of proceedings or allow the proceedings to culminate into award and then consider the objection against maintainability of the reference. 19. It has emerged from the record that the petitioner company filed present petition immediately after the appropriate Government passed order of reference dated 10.1.2007. 20. Since then, i.e. since 22.2.2007 the proceedings of reference case have been stayed in view of the ad-interim relief granted by this Court vide order dated 22.2.2007. 21. Thus, it has also emerged that the reference proceedings before the learned Labour Court have otherwise also not proceeded further. 22. 20. Since then, i.e. since 22.2.2007 the proceedings of reference case have been stayed in view of the ad-interim relief granted by this Court vide order dated 22.2.2007. 21. Thus, it has also emerged that the reference proceedings before the learned Labour Court have otherwise also not proceeded further. 22. Under the circumstances, from all prospectives, it is appropriate and necessary to interject at this stage and to set the course right at this stage by directing the appropriate Government to re-commence the conciliation proceedings if the claimant pursues the dispute and thereafter to pass appropriate order of reference after taking into all contentions and objections of the original first party as well as present petitioner. All contentions of both sides are kept open. With the aforesaid clarifications and observations, the petition is allowed. The order dated 10.1.2007 is set aside and the proceedings are remitted to the Labour Commissioner/Conciliation Officer for fresh proceedings and appropriate order. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Petition Allowed.