JUDGMENT : Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. 1. The petitioner by way of this writ petition has assailed the award dated 8.7.2008 whereby the reference made by the Employees Union relating to the workman Ramesh Chandra Sharma has been answered in favour of workman holding that the action of the petitioner in not taking the workman on duty on the post of peon was illegal and unjustified. 2. The Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Judge, Labour Court was informed that the workman has been removed after conducting the departmental enquiry subsequent to the reference. It has also been noticed by the Labour Court in its award and, therefore, it ought not have passed the award for reinstatement on the post of peon. Counsel further submits that as the workman has already raised the dispute before the Labour Court relating to subsequent termination and the same is pending, the Labour Court ought to have left the case to be examined in the said reference. The Counsel also submits that since the workman himself submitted his statement of claim and not through the Union, and reference was not in relation to the termination or dismissal in terms of section 2-k of the Act of 1947, the Labour Court could not have examined the dispute on the basis of statement of claim submitted by the workman individually and it ought to have been taken-up by the Union. 3. The Counsel for the petitioner also submits that the post of peon/chowkidar is an encadred post in the service rules and if, the respondent-workman had been asked to perform the duties of chowkidar, he could not have refused to do so and he cannot be forced to work as peon and in view thereof, as the petitioner had asked the respondent to perform the duty of chowkidar, it cannot be said that the petitioner had disallowed the respondent to perform the duty. 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Counsel for the respondent-workman was asked to inform about the status relating to the workman as of today. The Counsel for the respondent-workman has informed that the respondent was not allowed to work as peon and services were terminated treating him as absent from duty and after conducting an enquiry along with certain other charges. The Counsel for the respondent-workman has informed that the respondent was not allowed to work as peon and services were terminated treating him as absent from duty and after conducting an enquiry along with certain other charges. The workman has again raised the dispute before the Labour Court in relation to his termination which is pending for disposal. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the award dated 8.7.2008. A perusal of the award dated 8.7.2008 shows that the State Government vide its reference dated 27.3.1987 referred the following dispute to the Labour Court: ÞD;k O;oLFkkid] jktLFkku y?kq m|ksx fuxe fy- eq[;ky;] t;iqj }kjk Jh jes'kpUnz 'kekZ ¼ftuds fookn dk izfrfuf/kRo egkea=h jktLFkku y?kq m|ksx fuxe] deZpkjh laxBu m|ksx Hkou fryd ekxZ] t;iqj }kjk fd;k x;k½ dks M~;wVh ij u ysuk mfpr ,oa oS| gSAÞ 6. A perusal of the aforesaid reference shows that the dispute was raised by the Employees Union through its General Secretary of the Rajasthan Small Industries Corporation. After the reference has been made, the workman submitted his statement of claim. Objection regarding statement of claim was raised by the petitioner before the Judge, Labour Court who has dealt with the said objection and has reached to a conclusion that in terms of section 2-k of the Act of 1947, it is the dispute which is required to be raised by the Union and that statement of claim has to be essentially filed by the Union. Since the statement of claim has been filed by the aggrieved workman, no illegality has been found by the Judge, Labour Court. It has been stated that if workman is disallowed upto his claim, it would be against the principles of equity. This Court approves the view taken by the Judge, Labour Court, and find that in terms of section 2-k of the Act of 1947, the dispute which is required to be raised is that if the Union or body of workman espouses his cause, it does not become an industrial dispute. This Court approves the view taken by the Judge, Labour Court, and find that in terms of section 2-k of the Act of 1947, the dispute which is required to be raised is that if the Union or body of workman espouses his cause, it does not become an industrial dispute. Once the said dispute had been raised and the State Government acknowledged the same and refers it for examination before the Labour Court, it is not necessary that Union alone may submit the statement of claim and individually the workman for whom the Union has espoused the cause, may submit the statement of claim and of course the workman whose espouse has been raised by the Union, will leave his own evidence. If a different view is taken, same would defeat the ends of justice as there may be circumstances where after the dispute has already been espoused by the Union and reference has been made because of change of Unions authority/functionaries, the Union may not file the statement of claim leaving the concerned aggrieved workman file. The said situation would defeat the very purpose of the Act of 1947. In view thereof, the submission made by Counsel for the petitioner stands rejected. 7. Next question which the Counsel for the petitioner raises is in relation to the second dispute which the workman has raised relating to his subsequent termination. Suffice it to say that so far as Labour Court is concerned, it is body found under the Act of 1947 and is required to decide any reference which has been referred to it in terms of section 10 of the Act of 1947 and merely because a subsequent dispute has been raised relating to subsequent event, it cannot be said that the Labour Court will lay off its hands and not decide the reference made to it. Thus the submission raised above by Counsel for the petitioner is rejected. 8. The third submission raised relates to the post of peon and chowkidar being in schedule in one column and, therefore, interchangeable. It is noticed that as per rules, peon/chowkidar have been mentioned with a qualification that the post has to be filled from literate peon with five years minimum experience. Thus the literate peon is a separate post than the peon/chowkidar. It is noticed that as per rules, peon/chowkidar have been mentioned with a qualification that the post has to be filled from literate peon with five years minimum experience. Thus the literate peon is a separate post than the peon/chowkidar. That apart, if a person is unable to perform the duty as chowkidar for reasons which may be many, he cannot be disallowed to perform his duties. The Labour Court has thus considered all the aspects and passed the well reasoned award which does not call for any interference. Further the award impugned dated 8.7.2008 is accordingly upheld. The writ petition being held to be misconceived is accordingly dismissed.