ORDER : 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the letter no. L-20012/16/2022-IR(CM-I), dated 23rd March, 2022 (Annexure-8 to the present writ petition), whereby the respondent no. 1 has erroneously declined to refer the dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondent no. 1 to refer the dispute with respect to regularisation of services of the petitioner to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad within specified period. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 3. It appears that the petitioner-Ex-Havildar having Personnel No. 212113 was appointed on 7th June, 1979 in the service of the respondent no. 4. Charge-sheet dated 2nd March, 2010 under Clause 19(6) of the Company’s (i.e. respondent no. 4) Certified Standing Orders was issued to him for negligence of duty. The petitioner participated in the inquiry, which culminated in his dismissal from service of the respondent no. 4 w.e.f. 8th May, 2010. However, on the request of a recognized union i.e. Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh, the management of respondent no. 4 took a decision to reinstate the petitioner on the substantive post of Havildar, Security w.e.f. 6th August, 2011 without paying back-wages. Thereafter, he was re-employed after granting continuity of service w.e.f. his initial date of appointment i.e. 7th June, 1979 and finally superannuated w.e.f. 30th April, 2016 after getting one year extension of service beyond 60 years of age. The petitioner, however, being aggrieved with the action of management of the respondent no. 4 with respect to his reinstatement in service without back-wages, filed I.D. Case No. 5 of 2018 before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad invoking Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter be referred as the Act, 1947) which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 8th May, 2019. 4. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the application under Section 2A of the Act, 1947 was withdrawn by the petitioner under wrong advice as he was already reinstated in service and had finally retired therefrom after availing the benefits of continuity of service along with one year extension of service. 4. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the application under Section 2A of the Act, 1947 was withdrawn by the petitioner under wrong advice as he was already reinstated in service and had finally retired therefrom after availing the benefits of continuity of service along with one year extension of service. Nonetheless, the withdrawal of the said case does not come in the way of the petitioner to get the dispute adjudicated by the CGIT through reference which has arbitrarily been denied by the respondent no. 1 vide impugned letter dated 23rd March, 2022. It is also submitted that the role of the respondent no. 1 in referring the dispute to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal for adjudication is merely administrative in nature. It is not permissible to form its opinion on the merit of the case and decline the reference of the dispute. 5. To appreciate the said submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, it is relevant to go through the content of the letter dated 23rd March, 2022 issued by the respondent no. 1 on perusal of which, it appears that the reference of the dispute raised by the Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union on behalf of the petitioner has been declined primarily due to the reason that the petitioner had earlier raised the same dispute before the CGIT No. 1, Dhanbad under Section 2A of the Act, 1947 which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 8th May, 2019. Hence, it cannot be said that while declining the reference of the dispute, the respondent no. 1 entered into the merit of the same, rather the dispute was not referred for adjudication to the CGIT, Dhanbad due to the fact that the application of the petitioner raising the same dispute before the CGIT No. 1, Dhanbad was already dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 8th May, 2019. 6. Now the question for consideration of this Court is as to whether even after the order dated 8th May, 2019 passed by the CGIT No. 1, Dhanbad, whereby the petitioner’s application raising the same dispute was dismissed as withdrawn, the respondent no. 1 was duty bound to refer the dispute for adjudication of the CGIT, Dhanbad. 7. I have perused Section 2A of the Act, 1947, which reads as under: “Section 2-A: Dismissal, etc. 1 was duty bound to refer the dispute for adjudication of the CGIT, Dhanbad. 7. I have perused Section 2A of the Act, 1947, which reads as under: “Section 2-A: Dismissal, etc. of an individual workman to be deemed to be an industrial dispute: (1) Where any employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches or otherwise terminates the services of an individual workman, any dispute or difference between that workman and his employer connected with, or arising out of, such discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute notwithstanding that no other workman nor any union of workmen is a party to the dispute. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 10, any such workman as is specified in sub-section (1) may, make an application direct to the Labour Court or Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute referred to therein after the expiry of forty-five days from the date he has made the application to the Conciliation Officer of the appropriate Government for conciliation of the dispute, and in receipt of such application the Labour Court or Tribunal shall have powers and jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute, as if it were a dispute referred to it by the appropriate Government in accordance with the provisions of this Act and all the provisions of this Act shall apply in relation to such adjudication as they apply in relation to an industrial dispute referred to it by the appropriate Government. (3) The application referred to in sub-section (2) shall be made to the Labour Court or Tribunal before the expiry of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of service as specified in sub-section (1).” 8. Before the introduction of Section 2-A an individual workman who was discharged, dismissed or retrenched or whose service was otherwise terminated and whose case was not espoused by any labour union or by a substantial number of workmen had no remedy. To deal with that contingency Section 2-A was introduced vide Section 3 of Act No. 35 of 1965 to give relief to an individual workman who was discharged, dismissed or retrenched or whose service was otherwise terminated. To deal with that contingency Section 2-A was introduced vide Section 3 of Act No. 35 of 1965 to give relief to an individual workman who was discharged, dismissed or retrenched or whose service was otherwise terminated. Sub-Section (2) of Section 2A of the Act, 1947, which is a non-obstante provision, provides that irrespective of anything contained in Section 10 of the said Act, any individual workman who has been discharged, dismissed, retrenched or terminated from service, may make an application directly to the Labour Court or Tribunal for adjudication of the industrial dispute after expiry of 45 days from the date he has made the application to the Conciliation Officer of the appropriate Government for conciliation of the dispute and on receipt of such application, the Labour Court or the Tribunal shall have the power and jurisdiction to adjudicate the said dispute as if it was a dispute referred to it by the appropriate Government in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. 9. It would, thus, be evident that Section 2A of the Act, 1947 is an exception to the procedure provided under Section 10(1) of the Act, 1947 or can also be said to be a parallel provision to the same so as to give relief to an individual workman. Since the petitioner had chosen to take recourse of preferring an application under Section 2A of the Act, 1947 before the CGIT No. 1, Dhanbad and the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 8th May, 2019, this Court is of the view that the same dispute could not have again been referred for adjudication of the CGIT. Hence, declining the reference of the dispute vide impugned order dated 23rd March, 2022 does not suffer from any infirmity in law. Accordingly, there is no reason to interfere with the same. 10. The writ petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.