Industrial dispute reference under Section 4-K needs no prior hearing and remains valid if the dispute still subsists.

A reference of an industrial dispute under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act is an administrative, preliminary act and does not itself determine substantive rights, so no prior notice or hearing is required before the Government makes the reference. The arrangement relied on by the employer was treated as an agreement to submit the matter to arbitration, not a statutory settlement finally extinguishing the dispute, so it did not bar a fresh reference. The record also showed that the industrial dispute continued to subsist, and the Government had material to support a renewed reference without any failure to apply mind.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Government was bound to afford notice and hearing to the employer before making a reference of the industrial dispute under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; (ii) Whether the arrangement between the parties and the decision of Sri B. B. Lal constituted a binding settlement resolving the dispute so as to bar a fresh reference; (iii) Whether, on the facts, an industrial dispute continued to subsist and the reference was made without application of mind.

Issue (i): Whether the Government was bound to afford notice and hearing to the employer before making a reference of the industrial dispute under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Analysis: The power to refer an industrial dispute is administrative in character and does not itself determine substantive rights. A reference merely sends the dispute to the adjudicatory forum where both sides get a full hearing. The principles of natural justice, including audi alteram partem, are not attracted to such a preliminary step unless civil rights are directly and inevitably affected. The Court held that the consequences complained of were only incidental and did not create any pre-decisional right to be heard.

Conclusion: No right of prior notice or hearing arose in favour of the employer before a reference under Section 4-K was made.

Issue (ii): Whether the arrangement between the parties and the decision of Sri B. B. Lal constituted a binding settlement resolving the dispute so as to bar a fresh reference.

Analysis: A settlement under the Act must resolve the dispute in the statutory sense. The arrangement relied upon by the employer was held to be, in substance, an agreement to submit the matter to arbitration by Sri B. B. Lal, not a statutory settlement finally extinguishing the industrial dispute. It was not shown to satisfy the statutory requirements for an enforceable settlement or arbitration in the manner contemplated by the Act.

Conclusion: The arrangement did not amount to a binding statutory settlement and did not bar the subsequent reference.

Issue (iii): Whether, on the facts, an industrial dispute continued to subsist and the reference was made without application of mind.

Analysis: The record showed continued agitation by the workmen and their union, including challenges to the dismissal and renewed demands for reinstatement. The Government could reconsider an earlier refusal to refer the dispute, and the continuance of the dispute itself was a relevant basis for a fresh reference. The Court found no failure to apply mind or absence of material supporting the existence of a live industrial dispute.

Conclusion: The industrial dispute continued to subsist and the reference was validly made.

Final Conclusion: The impugned reference was upheld, and the writ petition failed on all substantial grounds.

Ratio Decidendi: A reference of an industrial dispute under Section 4-K is an administrative, preliminary act that does not attract a prior hearing requirement because it does not determine substantive rights, and an earlier refusal to refer does not exhaust the Government's power where the dispute continues to exist.

---