employer as party respondent, on which, the Government maintained its stand. It is in presence of only those parties and with that material, directions were issued by this Court vide judgment dated 18.07.1994 that, Government may reconsider. It is this direction which has resulted in referring the dispute by the Government to the Labour Court, Baroda for adjudication, as to whether the discontinuance of service of those 58 employees is legal or otherwise. The employer had moved this Court for review, however it was rejected vide order dated 16.09.1994, principally on the ground that the employer was not party to the said proceedings, and additionally that the directions of this Court had already stood complied with, by that time. It is in this background that these 58 References are made by the Government and they are being heard by the Labour Court, Baroda. The emphasis of the directions of this Court, in this regard, at the best, can be read to the extent that, the stand of the Government not to make References was not legal and it was asked to reconsider, but it would be wrong to read those directions to mean that the References were directed to be made to the Labour Court and Labour Court alone, and not to the Industrial Tribunal. The objection of the respondent Union that in view of those directions, now it is impermissible to ask the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate those References, would be misreading of those directions. Further, when those References were made, it was challenged before this Court by the employer. The said challenge has failed in the group of petitions being Special Civil Application No.2519 of 1995 and cognate matters. The effect thereof is again that the References are maintainable, and not that they cannot be heard by the Industrial Tribunal. Thus, these objections are rejected.
