ORDER : 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner company aggrieved against the notification dated 9.5.2017 (Annex.12), whereby, the dispute between the petitioner company and respondent No.4 - workman has been referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Jodhpur. 2. It is inter alia indicated in the writ petition that the workman on account of administrative exigency was transferred from Sirohi to Jhajjar by order dated 6.8.2014. It is alleged that the workman by letter dated 9.8.2014 requested the management to allow him 15 days’ time for the purpose of relocation and on the other hand lodged application dated 10.8.2014 with the conciliation officer and Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Ajmer, to which a detailed reply was filed, whereafter the dispute raised before the conciliation officer was withdrawn unconditionally as is evident from order dated 5.5.2015. However, the order of transfer was not complied with and a letter dated 29.11.2015 written by Local MLA, Pindwara to the Labour Minister, who instructed the conciliation officer to look into the matter, was submitted. 3. A detailed response was given by the petitioner company and the Local MLA also again issued a letter dated 10.1.2016 to the effect that the workman has been transferred properly & in accordance with law and that based on false fact he was persuaded to issue the letter dated 29.11.2015 and that no further proceedings are required to be taken, which communication was produced before the conciliation officer. However, the conciliation officer continued with the proceedings and the order dated 9.5.2017 (Annex.12) was issued by the State Government referring the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner company that the reference of the dispute in the present circumstances by the State Government is ex facie illegal and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. It was submitted that once the similar dispute was raised before the conciliation officer and was withdrawn unconditionally, no fresh proceedings pertaining to the same dispute could be raised. 4. It was submitted that once the similar dispute was raised before the conciliation officer and was withdrawn unconditionally, no fresh proceedings pertaining to the same dispute could be raised. Further submissions have been made that once the subsequent proceedings were initiated by the conciliation officer based on the communication made by the Local MLA and as the Local MLA sought withdrawal of the said communication, the conciliation officer could not have given a failure report and once the failure report could not be given, the consequential action of referring the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal based on said failure report is also bad and, therefore, the reference deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent workman vehemently opposed the submissions. It was inter alia submitted that once the dispute raised earlier before the conciliation officer was not resolved on merits and the same was withdrawn reserving the rights, therefore, the said nature of disposal cannot prohibit the respondent workman from agitating the grievance before the conciliation officer. 6. Further submissions were made that though the MLA sought withdrawal of the communication written by him, the workman had persisted with his complaint and several dates were fixed by the conciliation officer seeking to resolve the dispute and once the dispute could not be resolved and the failure report was given by the conciliation officer which resulted in referring of the dispute by the State Government to the Industrial Tribunal, the order does not call for any interference. 7. Reliance was placed on Prakash Roadlines Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: 2005(2) CDR 1661 (Raj.), Bakshi Steels Limited v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.: 2004(1)CDR 7 & Sarva Shramik Sangh v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited : (2009) 11 SCC 609 . 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 9. A perusal of the statement of case filed by the Union before the conciliation officer (Annex.2) indicates that transfer of respondent workman from Sirohi to Jhajjar was inter alia the subject-matter of the dispute raised before the conciliation officer, however, the said dispute was decided by the conciliation officer by its order dated 5.5.2015 (Annex.4) by passing the following order:- ^^fnukad 5-5-2015 izkFkhZ ;wfu;u izfrfuf/k Jh egsUnz dqekj tSu mifLFkr gSA vizkFkhZ izcU/kd izfrfuf/k Jh fnus'k i.M~;k Sr. G.M(P & A) mifLFkr gSA vizkFkhZ izcU/ku izfrfuf/k us lwfpr fd;k fd ;wfu;u ds ekax i= esa mBk;s x;s fcUnqvksa dk lek/kku gks x;k gS rFkk ;wfu;u dks laLFkku esa ekU;rk iznku dh tk pqdh gS ,oa ;wfu;u inkf/kdkfj;ksa ds lkFk yfEcr fooknksa ij vkil esa ppkZ dj lek/kku djus ds iz;kl tkjh gS ,slh fLFkfr esa fookn dks lekIr fd;k tkuk pkfg,A ;wfu;u izfrfuf/k mDr fopkj ls lger gS ijUrq og bl fookn dks okil vius vf/kdkjksa dks lqjf{kr j[krs gq, ys jgs gSa rFkk bl Lrj ij fookn ij dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha pkgrs gSA nksuksa i{kksa ds fopkj lquus ds i'pkr~ i=koyh esa dksbZ dk;Zokgh dh vko';drk ugha gS rFkk ;wfu;u izfrfuf/k dks fookn okil ysus dh Lohd`fr nsrs gq, i=koyh nrj nkf[ky dh tkrh gSA^^ 10. A perusal of the above order would indicate that the management informed the conciliation officer that on the pending disputes resolution would be arrived at by discussion mutually, which was accepted by the representative of the Union and consequently, the dispute was withdrawn reserving the rights and, therefore, the conciliation officer observed that at this stage there was no necessity of any further proceedings in the case and while permitting the Union to withdraw the dispute, the matter was closed. 11. The above nature of disposal of the dispute raised by the Union including the issue of transfer of petitioner cannot and does not put an end to the dispute between the parties inasmuch as the dispute was withdrawn with a view to discuss the same with the management and the rights in this regard were also reserved. Admittedly, the issue has not been resolved between the parties and, therefore, it cannot be said that the withdrawal of the proceedings, as noticed hereinbefore, would create an estoppel against the respondent workman to agitate his grievance before the conciliation officer and, therefore, the submissions made in this regard by learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. 12. Admittedly, the issue has not been resolved between the parties and, therefore, it cannot be said that the withdrawal of the proceedings, as noticed hereinbefore, would create an estoppel against the respondent workman to agitate his grievance before the conciliation officer and, therefore, the submissions made in this regard by learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. 12. So far as the plea raised that once the dispute was again initiated before the conciliation officer based on the letter of the MLA, which letter stood withdrawn and, therefore, the proceedings could not have continued resulting in failure report and consequential reference to the Industrial Tribunal, is concerned, it would be appropriate to quote the report sent by the conciliation officer dated 23.3.2017 (Annex.R/4/41), which reads as under:- ^^1- Jh ukjk;.k yky ifjgkj] ts-ds-y{eh lhesUV] fljksgh dk >>j ¼gfj;k.kk½ LFkkukUrj.k dks fujLr djus ,oa ;Fkkor ts-ds- y{eh lhesUV fljksgh esa gh j[kus ckcr ek0 fo/kk;d] fi.MokM+k dk i= fnukad 29-11-15 bl dk;kZy; dks ek0 Je ea=h] jktLFkku egksn; ds ek/;e ls izkIr gqvk ¼izfr layXu½ gSA rRi'pkr~ iqu% ek0 fo/kk;d] fi.MokM+k us ek0 Je ea=h] jktLFkku dks i= fnukad 10-1-16 ls voxr djk;k fd muds }kjk ek0 Je ea=h dks izdj.k esa fy[ks iwoZ i= fnukad 29-11-15 ij fdlh izdkj dh dk;Zokgh dh vko';drk ugha gSA ¼izfr layXu½ 2- mijksDr ds Øe esa bl dk;kZy; esa fnukad 11-1-16] 18-1-16] 22-2-16] 8-3-16] 7-4-16] 11-5-16] 20-6+-16] 14-7-16] 22-8-16] 6-10-16] 7-11-16] 22-12-16] 25-1-17] 28-2-17 o 16-3-17 dks okrkZ vk;ksftr dh xbZ ijUrq mDr rkjh[kksa esa okrkZvksa dk ldkjkRed ifj.kke ugha fudykA 3- vafre okrkZ fnukad 16-3-17 dks uk rks fu;kstd i{k vkSj uk gh Jfed i{k mifLFkr gqvkA vfirq fu;kstd i{k }kjk i= okgd ls ,d i= fnukad 16-3-17 dks bl dk;kZy; dks izsf"kr dj voxr djk;k fd os bl dk;kZy; esa dbZ ckj mifLFkr gksdj foLrkj ls vius er dks O;Dr dj pqds gS rFkk vkxzg fd;k fd izdj.k dks lekIr fd;k tkosA bl izdkj lEiw.kZ okrkZ o vafre izLrkfor okrkZ fnukad 16-3-17 dks izkIr fu;kstd ds i= ds Øe esa ;g Li"V gS fd fu;kstd i{k le>kSrk djus gsrq ,oa Jfed dk LFkkukUrj.k jnn djus gsrq rS;kj ugha gS ,oa bl dkj.k le>kSrk gksus dh lEHkkouk ugha gksus ds Øe esa okrkZ vlQy ?kksf"kr dj Jheku~ dks vlQy okrkZ izfrosnu izsf"kr djus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;kA^^ 13. A perusal of the above report would indicate that initially a letter was written by the MLA on 29.11.2015 seeking resolution of dispute between the company and the workman, which letter was withdrawn by another communication dated 10.1.2016 by the MLA. Whereafter, admittedly proceedings were held on several dates over a period of 15 months before the conciliation officer and on 16.3.2017, neither of the parties appeared, based on which, it was indicated that conciliation efforts failed. Though the letter also indicates that failure report in two copies are annexed, on an application filed by the workman under Right to Information Act, the conciliation officer vide his UO note (Annex.R/4/42) has indicated that the said aspect has been wrongly indicated and the letter itself is the failure report. 14. From the above communication it is apparent that though the MLA sought withdrawal of the communication written by him, as the dispute between the parties had not been resolved, the conciliation officer continued with his efforts to resolve the dispute, the said aspect is also fortified from copy of the communication/response/representation made by the workman (Annex.R/4/47), wherein, he has raised all kinds of disputes pertaining to his transfer and ultimately on account of failure to resolve the dispute through conciliation, the conciliation officer sent his failure report to the State Government resulting in the dispute being referred to the Industrial Tribunal. 15. Once despite the communication of the MLA, on account of un-resolved dispute between the petitioner company and the respondent workman, the conciliation officer continued with his efforts and failed to resolve the dispute, no fault can be found with his submitting the failure report to the State Government and consequential action of the State Government in referring the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication in accordance with law and, therefore, the submission made in this regard also has no substance. No other issue was raised. 16. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.