JUDGMENT K.M. Thaker, J. Heard Mr. Dave, learned advocate for the petitioner electricity company and Mr. Mishra, learned advocate for the respondent union as well as Ms.Guru, learned AGP for the respondent State. 2. In present petition, the petitioner has prayed, inter alia, that: "7(A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the impugned order of Reference made by the Under Secretary of respondent NO.1 dated 22nd November, 2011; (B) Be pleased to direct the secretary, president and office bearers of respondent no.3 and the concerned employees to whom the respondent no.3 is representing to surrender the benefits with the petitioner which they have obtained under the settlement in question/GSO-1 before continuing their challenge by way of present reference; 3. The petitioner electricity company is aggrieved by order of reference dated 22.11.2011 passed by the appropriate government whereby the appropriate government referred the demand raised by present respondent No.3 union to learned Tribunal at Vadodara. 4. So far as the factual background is concerned, the petitioner has averred and stated that: "2.1 By way of present petition, the petitioner seeks to 22nd November, 2011 absolutely illegal and unjust order of Reference made by the Under Secretary of respondent No.1 dated 22nd November, 2011. A copy of impugned order dated 22nd November, 2011 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-A. It is submitted that the said Reference is pending adjudication before the learned Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara be in Reference (IT) No. 159 of 2011. 2.2 The petitioner states that respondent No.3 is neither recognized union nor having appreciable number of employees as its member. Despite this fact, only with a view to create industrial unrest and with a view to engage the petitioner in unnecessary litigation so as to make its presence felt in the industry, respondent No. 3 raised industrial dispute against the petitioner. It is submitted that the respondent No.3 raised dispute inter alia contending that settlement entered into by the petitioner with respondent recognized union, i.e. No. 5 herein, and GSO 1 issued in pursuance to the said settlement shall be set aside. 2.3 The respondent No.3 gave strike notice on 01st December, 2009. It is submitted that the respondent No.3 raised dispute inter alia contending that settlement entered into by the petitioner with respondent recognized union, i.e. No. 5 herein, and GSO 1 issued in pursuance to the said settlement shall be set aside. 2.3 The respondent No.3 gave strike notice on 01st December, 2009. A copy of strike notice dated 01st December, 2009 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-B. 2.4 In pursuance to the said strike notice, since petitioner is a public utility proceedings came to be held by the office of the Commissioner of Labour Gandhinagar. A copy of notice issued to the petitioner on 19th January, 2010 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-C. The case of respondent No.3 was that the present petitioner entered into illegal settlement without taking into confidence any other unions with respondent No.5. 2.5 The petitioner submits that as per settlement dated 26th March, 1998, pay revision agreement expired on 31st December, 2005. Accordingly all recognized union, associations have submitted their chartered of demands to Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited for revised pay and allowances. Thereafter, the discussions with all the recognized Unions/Associations have started in October, 2008 and thereafter, after about 13 protracted discussions, on 04th June, 2009, the Company and Unions have reached an agreement for the pay revision and other incentives and accordingly, the record of discussion was drawn on 04th June, 2009 under the signature of all the recognized Unions/ Associations. 2.6 Subsequently, the Management had called all the recognized Unions/ Associations for detailed discussions on other issues like allowances and other issues relating to pay revision on 08th June, 2009 and 29th June, 2009. However, except the representatives of respondent No.5, all other Unions/Associations have, for one or other reasons boycotted the meetings. 2.6 Subsequently, the Management had called all the recognized Unions/ Associations for detailed discussions on other issues like allowances and other issues relating to pay revision on 08th June, 2009 and 29th June, 2009. However, except the representatives of respondent No.5, all other Unions/Associations have, for one or other reasons boycotted the meetings. In view of this, AGVKS-respondent No.5 herein, being the major Union recognized by the petitioner and all the holding Companies, the Management, on 30th June, 2009 under Section 2(p) and under Section 12 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, entered into a settlement and consequent upon this settlement, GSO-1 is issued, vide which all the employees of GUVNL and its holding Companies are made eligible to get the pay revision and all other allowances and made binding to other terms and conditions/ service rules, which has been widely accepted by all the employees, by filing up the Option Form for having accepted the GS0-1 with all its conditions. A copy of settlement dated 30th June, 2009 recorded by the Conciliation Officer under Section 12 (3) read with Section 2 (p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-D. 2.7 The petitioner submits that on the basis of the said settlement, GSO-1 came to be issued on 013t July, 2009. A copy of Gso-1 dated 01st July, 2009 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-E. It is submitted that all the employees including the President and Secretary of present respondent No. 3 union filled-in Option Form and have accepted GSO-1. A copy of one such acceptance Form is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-F. 2.8 After having accepted all the benefits, respondent No.3 sought to challenge the said settlement and GSo-1 and accordingly raised industrial dispute. It is submitted that appropriate government vide its order dated 01 January, 2011 refused to refer the matter for adjudication on the ground that there is settlement between the Company and all the employees are taking benefit settlement. A copy of order dated 03rd January, 2011 refusing to make Reference is annexed of the said herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-G. 2.9 Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, respondent No.3 preferred petition before this Hon'ble Court being Special Civil Application No.1307 of 2011. This Hon'ble Court has been pleased to allow the said petition by order dated 2eth July, 2011. This Hon'ble Court has been pleased to allow the said petition by order dated 2eth July, 2011. A copy of order dated 2eth July, 2011 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Special Civil Application No.1307 of 2011 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-H. It is submitted that in pursuance to the order passed by this Hon'ble Court, respondent Nos.1 and 2 were bound to held fresh proceedings, however without considering the same, straightway Reference order came to be issued which is at Annexure-A. 2.10 It is submitted that the present petitioner preferred Letters Patent Appeal No.1219 of 2012 before this Hon'ble Court challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court. It is submitted that by order dated 23rd October, 2012 Appeal came to be admitted and it was further ordered that Reference Court shall proceed with the matter but shall not pronounce or sign the judgment. A copy of order dated 23rd October, 2012 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.1219 of 2012 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-I. It is submitted that when the matter came up for final hearing before this Hon'ble Court, the Hon'ble Division Bench has been pleased to hold that order of learned Single Judge is exhausted since the Reference is already made. Therefore, the Hon'ble Division Bench held that it will not be appropriate for the Court to examine the matter on merits. It has further held that it is open for the appellant-petitioner herein to challenge the order passed by the State Government making Reference before the competent Court. It has also been observed that it will be open for the appellant and respondents to raise all the contentions as and when order of Reference is challenged. A copy of order dated 06th May, 2014 passed in LPA no. 1219 of 2012 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-J." 5. From the said facts it has emerged that in respect of service conditions of the workmen employed by the petitioner electricity company, more particularly with regard to salary, allowances and other benefits/perquisites, the company ordinarily enters into settlement with the unions. 6. It has also emerged that at the relevant time there are about 7 unions were active in the petitioner company and the said 7 unions claim membership/representation of the workmen employed by the company. Present respondent No.3 union is one of the said 7 unions. 6. It has also emerged that at the relevant time there are about 7 unions were active in the petitioner company and the said 7 unions claim membership/representation of the workmen employed by the company. Present respondent No.3 union is one of the said 7 unions. 7. It has also emerged from the record that on previous occasion, certain demands were raised by the unions, for revision in salary and for other benefits/perquisites or revision in terms of the benefit and perquisites. 8. In respect of said demands, a settlement was arrived at between the company and the unions. The said settlement expired in 2006. 9. By the time, the unions could raise fresh demand, the company decided to adopt and implement recommendations by 6th Pay Commission. In view of the said decision by the company, respondent No.5 union and the petitioner company entered into settlement. The said settlement was signed and executed on 30.6.2009. 10. Subsequently, the said settlement came to be implemented and the benefits flowing from the said settlement came to be granted/paid to the workmen. 11. According to the company, all workmen, without any exception, accepted the settlement, more particularly the benefits flowing from the said settlement including the revision in salary, perquisites and allowances. 12. Accordingly, the settlement came to be implemented. 13. According to the company, all employees (who accepted the settlement) also signed, executed and submitted declaration form accepting the settlement and the benefits therefrom. 14. After sometime present respondent No.3 union raised dispute with regard to the said settlement. 15. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that the respondent No.3 union did not raise any separate demand (charter of demand) for any benefit/revision in salary, etc. but it merely and plainly opposed the settlement and claimed that the said settlement should be set aside. 16. At this stage, it is necessary to note that the company would contend that the said dispute/demand by the union viz. to set aside the settlement would translate into position that if the said demand of respondent No.3 union were to be accepted and the settlement were to be set aside, then the clock will have to be set back inasmuch as all benefits granted by the company to all employees (including benefit of revision in salary, allowances, perquisites) would stand nullified and the position prior to the date of settlement would stand restored. The salary, allowances, perquisites, etc. would revert to the original position which obtained prior to the implementation of the settlement. 17. The company would also claim that effect of such demand would not be restricted to this position but the workmen would have to return the benefits already received by them. 18. It appears that either unmindful of this position or on account of inter se disputes and rivalry between the unions or on account of genuine and bona fide misunderstanding about the consequences of said dispute - more particularly in absence of any demand for fresh revision in wages and benefits or for the reasons best known to the respondent No.3 union, it insisted that the settlement should be set aside. 19. Respondent No.3 union seems to have approached appropriate government with the said dispute. However, appropriate government, vide order dated 30.6.2009, refused to pass order of reference and referred such demand for adjudication. 20. Against the said order, respondent No.3 union filed Special Civil Application No. 1307 of 2011. The demand and grievance raised by respondent No. 3 union in the said Special Civil Application No. 1307 of 2011 is briefly summarised by the Court in paragraph No.1 of the order dated 28.7.2011 whereby the petition came to be disposed of. The said paragraph No.1 reads thus: "1. The petitioner along with two other co-petitioners, who are ordered to be joined as co-petitioners by order passed today in Civil Application Nos.8012 and 8014 of 2011, are before this Court challenging an order passed on 03.01.2011 by the Additional Secretary, Labour & Employment Department, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar, whereby the demand raised by Gujarat Vidhyut Board Technical Karmachari Hit Rakshak Mandal challenging settlement dated 30.06.2009 arrived at between Akhil Gujarat Vidhyut Kamdar Sangh and Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. was refused on the ground that the settlement being under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act is binding and all the workers are drawing benefits flowing form the said settlement and therefore, the same cannot be quashed and set aside." 21. From the said narration, the scope of the grievance raised by the petitioner becomes clear. 22. From the said narration, the scope of the grievance raised by the petitioner becomes clear. 22. Having regard to the legal position that role of appropriate government is restricted and it cannot examine the merits of the dispute and that if dispute is presented before the appropriate government with claim for reference, then, ordinarily, appropriate government should pass order of reference instead of entering into merits of the dispute, the Court passed following directions vide above mentioned order dated 28.7.2011: "7. In the considered opinion of this Court, no prejudice will be caused to Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. and the apprehension expressed by learned Advocate Mr. Dipak R.Dave that making a 'Reference' for adjudication by the Labour Court will create 'industrial unrest' is found to be without any basis. 8. In the result, the petition is allowed. The order passed by the Additional Secretary, Labour & Employment Department, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar on 03.01.2011 is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute. No costs. It goes without saying that as the order is quashed and set aside, the authorities will consider the question afresh, in light of the observations made by this Court and will pass an order in accordance with law. At the request of learned Advocate Mr. Yogi Gadhiya, it is observed that, 'it will be in the fitness of things if all the parties are given an opportunity to put forward their point of view before the question involved is decided." 23. The said order was carried in appeal by the company. The Division Bench passed below quoted order: "1. We have heard Mr. Dipak R. Dave for the appellants and Mr. T. R. Mishra for respondent No. 1. The appeal is admitted. 2. The proceedings before the Reference Court shall go on but the judgment shall not be pronounced or signed by the Reference Court. The Civil Application is accordingly disposed of." 24. The said appeal (Letters Patent Appeal No. 1219 of 2012) came to be disposed of by the Division Bench vide order dated 6.5.2014. The said order reads thus: "By way of present appeal, the appellant has challenged judgement dated 28.7.2011 passed by learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 1307 of 2011 whereby the petition was allowed. 2. We have heard learned advocate Mr. Dave for the appellant. 3. The said order reads thus: "By way of present appeal, the appellant has challenged judgement dated 28.7.2011 passed by learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 1307 of 2011 whereby the petition was allowed. 2. We have heard learned advocate Mr. Dave for the appellant. 3. The order of learned Single Judge is exhausted in view of the fact that Reference is already referred by the competent authority to the Labour Court/Industrial Court. In our view, it will not be appropriate for this Court to examine the matter on merits. It will be open for the appellant to challenge the order passed by the State Government making Reference to the competent Court. We have not expressed any opinion on merits of the matter. It will be open for the appellant and the respondents to raise all the contentions as and when the order of Reference is challenged before the competent Court. In that view of the matter, the appeal stands disposed of. Interim relief stands vacated." 25. In the meanwhile, appropriate government had, in pursuance of the order dated 28.7.2011 in Special Civil Application No.1307 of 2011, passed impugned order of reference on 22.11.2011. The said order of reference culminated into Reference (IT) No.159 of 2011. 26. In this background, the petitioner electricity company filed present petition and challenged the order of reference dated 22.11.2011. 27. By the said order of reference the appropriate government has referred the demand raised by present respondent No.3 union as to whether GSO No.1 (i.e. settlement dated 30.6.2009) should be set aside or not. 28. On 21.12.2015, this Court passed below quoted order in present petition: "1. Challenge in this petition is made by the employer to the order dated 22.11.2011 passed by the Government, making Reference to the Industrial Tribunal Vadodara to adjudicate as to whether, GSO No.1 which is issued pursuant to the 2(p) settlement, should be set aside. 2. Rule. 3. Learned advocates are heard on the question of interim relief. 3.1 Attention of this Court is invited to the order of this Court dated 28.07.2011 recorded on Special Civil Application No. 1307 of 2011, more particularly the concluding part thereof. 2. Rule. 3. Learned advocates are heard on the question of interim relief. 3.1 Attention of this Court is invited to the order of this Court dated 28.07.2011 recorded on Special Civil Application No. 1307 of 2011, more particularly the concluding part thereof. It is further borne out from the record that the said order was challenged by the company in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1219 of 2012, which was admitted vide order dated 23.10.2012, however finally the said appeal was disposed of vide order dated 06.05.2014, considering the fact that the Reference was already made by the Government. The Division Bench has however, observed in Para-3 of the said order that it would be open to the appellant (the present petitioner) to challenge the Reference order. Pursuant to the said order, this petition is filed. In this background, this Court needs to examine the issue in view of the observations of the Division Bench in the order dated 06.05.2014. 2. This Court finds, prima-facie, that setting aside GSO No.1 would not only be not in the interest of the petitioner company, but it would not be in the interest of the workmen either, when hundreds and thousands of crores of rupees have been spent by the petitioner-company by this time, towards salary and arrears. 3. Further, during the course of hearing of this petition, to test the bona fide, at least of the office bearers of the contesting union, an order was passed on 30.11.2015, which is responded by saying that, it is not possible to refund the amount received by even the office bearers. 3.4 The impugned order passed by the Government, prime facie is in violation of the earlier order of this Court, wherein it was inter-alia provided that all the parties will be heard. Further, even on merits, prima facie it is unsustainable in law. Further there is material to hold, at least prima facie, that the proceedings are not taken out bona fide by the contesting respondent union. 4. For all these reasons, it is ordered that during the pendency of this petition, the proceedings before the Tribunal, pursuant to the impugned order dated 22.11.2011 shall remain stayed. 5. Liberty is reserved to the parties to move this Court for early hearing of the petition." 29. 4. For all these reasons, it is ordered that during the pendency of this petition, the proceedings before the Tribunal, pursuant to the impugned order dated 22.11.2011 shall remain stayed. 5. Liberty is reserved to the parties to move this Court for early hearing of the petition." 29. By the said order the Court admitted the petition and stayed the proceeding of the reference case which came to be instituted pursuant to the order of reference dated 22.11.2011. The proceedings of the said reference are stayed by virtue of the order dated 21.12.2015. 30. As mentioned above, three important aspects are involved in present case viz. (a) Any union other than respondent No.3 union has neither raised nor supported nor sponsored the demand viz. that the settlement dated 30.6.2009/GSO No.1 should be set aside; (b) Any independent or fresh charter of demand for revision in wages or perquisites or allowances or service conditions from the position which obtained prior to the company's decision to implement recommendations of 6th Pay Commission and/or the settlement was not and is still not raised by any union, not even by respondent No.3 union. Thus, the cancellation of the settlement would result into situation whereby there would not be fresh charter of demand and the settlement arrived at by the company in 2009 would also disappear. This would relegate the workmen to the position which prevailed before the settlement and before implementation of the recommendations of 6th Pay Commission, i.e. the situation would relegate the workmen at the stage of salary which they were drawing on account of settlement which expired in 2006. On the other hand, there would not be any other demand which may be either adjudicated by the learned Tribunal or which could be negotiated with the company. (c) All workmen including the members of present respondent No.3 union have availed benefits flowing from the settlement dated 30.6.2009. 31. Interestingly, even the office bearers of respondent No.3 union have accepted the settlement and the benefits flowing from the said settlement. 32. It is also pertinent to note that almost 9 years have passed since the said settlement has been implemented and it has remained in operation for almost 9 years. 33. As mentioned above, all workmen without any exception have accepted the settlement and benefits flowing from the settlement and also signed/executed declaration to that effect. 34. 32. It is also pertinent to note that almost 9 years have passed since the said settlement has been implemented and it has remained in operation for almost 9 years. 33. As mentioned above, all workmen without any exception have accepted the settlement and benefits flowing from the settlement and also signed/executed declaration to that effect. 34. In that view of the matter, before granting interim relief and before admitting the petition, the Court inquired with respondent No.3 union and the workmen that whether the workmen are ready and willing to return the benefits availed and received by them upon implementation of the settlement because if the settlement were to be cancelled (coupled with the absence of any fresh chartered of demand) the benefits paid by the company of implementation of the settlement shall have to be returned by the workmen. In response, respondent No.3 union filed an affidavit declaring that the workmen are neither willing nor ready and not even able to return the amount. The said affidavit reads thus: "I say that the above petition is filed by Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd., challenging the reference pending before the Industrial Tribunal, Baroda. This Hon'ble Court passed order on 30.11.2015, directing the respondent that with a view to see that the bona fide of the parties are clear before this Hon'ble Court, the respondent no.3 is directed to make its stand clear as to whether the office bearer of the said union are ready and willing to refund the benefit which they have received pursuant to the said settlement. In this connection, it is respectfully submitted that pursuant to the said settlement, benefit in the wage revision has been granted to all the workmen and they have spent the salary, it is absolutely impossible for the workmen to refund the same. It is further respectfully submitted that after signing the settlement, Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Ltd. has issued Circular giving 6% basic rise to the engineers working in general and rotating shifts. These engineers are also covered by the settlement signed between the parties. It may be mentioned here that the settlement was originally signed only by one union namely; Akhil Gujarat Vidhyut Kamdar Sangh and subsequently under duress and pressure the settlement has been implemented in respect of all the workmen. These engineers are also covered by the settlement signed between the parties. It may be mentioned here that the settlement was originally signed only by one union namely; Akhil Gujarat Vidhyut Kamdar Sangh and subsequently under duress and pressure the settlement has been implemented in respect of all the workmen. Therefore, the demand is for 6% increase over above the settlement which has been signed between the parties." 35. Now, when almost 3 years have passed since the Court admitted the petition and stayed the proceedings of reference, respondent No.3 union appears to have taken stock of the situation. 36. Respondent No.3 union also appears to have taken into account the fact that any fresh or charter of demand, after expiry of settlement in 2006, is not raised by any union and that, therefore, there is no demand at all for revision in wages and that, therefore, cancellation of the settlement would result into unsurmountable difficulties for the workmen. 37. Having realised the situation, the President of the union Mr. B.V. Dave has instructed Mr. Mishra, learned advocate for respondent No.3 union to submit that respondent No.3 union, without prejudice to its rights to raise charter of demand/fresh demand for revision in salary and/or allowances and/or perquisites and other aspects related to the service of the workmen, respondent No.3 union does not demand and does not claim that GSO No.1 and the settlement dated 30.6.2009 should be cancelled and the union, without prejudice to aforesaid right, withdraws and drops the demand to set aside the settlement dated 30.6.2009/GSO No.1. 38. Mr. Dave, learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that the company also reserves right to raise objection against maintainability of such demand at this stage and after having accepted the benefits of the settlement dated 30.6.2009. 39. In view of the said instructions by Mr. V.B. Dave, President of respondent No.3 union, Mr. Mishra, learned advocate for respondent No.3 union submitted that the union withdraws and drops the said demand and it shall not prosecute and it shall not proceed with the adjudication of the said demand/reference and shall file such declaration (withdrawal purshis) in the Tribunal. 40. V.B. Dave, President of respondent No.3 union, Mr. Mishra, learned advocate for respondent No.3 union submitted that the union withdraws and drops the said demand and it shall not prosecute and it shall not proceed with the adjudication of the said demand/reference and shall file such declaration (withdrawal purshis) in the Tribunal. 40. Therefore, in light of submission and settlement by learned advocate for the union (respondent No.3), following order is passed: (a) The union shall, within a fortnight, submit purshis before the learned Tribunal where Reference No.159 of 2011 is pending; (b) By such purshis the union shall declare that the union withdraws the demand and the reference may be disposed of as withdrawn/not pressed; (c) The union shall also submit such declaration to the petitioner company; (d) Respondent No.3 union shall abide by the settlement and declaration by Mr. Mishra, learned advocate for respondent No.3 union and it shall file appropriate purshis before the learned Tribunal declaring that the union withdraws demand for cancellation of settlement dated 30.6.2009/GSO No.1, without prejudice to its rights to raise charter of demand; (e) The learned Tribunal shall pass necessary and appropriate order disposing the reference, in light of such purshis and declaration by respondent No.3 union; (f) Similar purshis/declaration shall also be submitted by respondent No.3 union to the company; (g) Consequently and accordingly, the dispute with regard to the settlement dated 30.6.2009 and GSO No.1, which is raised by respondent No.3 union, shall stand closed and terminated; (h) This, however, will not stand in way of respondent No.3 union to raise, in accordance with law, demand/to submit charter of demand; (i) All objections by the company against such demand if and when raised/submitted by the union are kept open. The company can raise all objections as may be available in law, including objection against maintainability of such demand. In view of the said fact that respondent No.3 union now does not press the demand and has declared that it shall withdraw the demand/reference from the learned Tribunal, the cause to prosecute the petition does not survive and that, therefore, Mr. Dave, learned advocate for the petitioner electricity company submitted that without prejudice to the company's right to object the demand - if and when raised - the company does not press the petition, at this stage and the petition may be disposed of accordingly. Dave, learned advocate for the petitioner electricity company submitted that without prejudice to the company's right to object the demand - if and when raised - the company does not press the petition, at this stage and the petition may be disposed of accordingly. With the clarification that in case of difficulty, it would be open to the petitioner company to file appropriate application, present petition is disposed of as withdrawn at this stage in view of the aforesaid declaration and statement by learned advocate for the petitioner company and above mentioned directions. Orders accordingly. Rule is discharged. Ad-interim relief, if any, stands vacated forthwith.