JUDGMENT V.G. Oak, J.
1. This writ petition is directed against a proceeding pending before a labour court.
2. The petitioner is a registered partnership firm. Respondents 3, 4 and 5 were employees of the petitioner. They were discharged in July 1960. It was pressed on their behalf that their discharge was unjustified. On 30 November 1960 the State Government referred the dispute between the parties to the labour court at Meerut. The question referred to the labour court was whether the discharge of the three workmen was legal and justified. That matter is now pending before the labour court, Meerut, which is respondent 1 in the writ petition. The writ petition is directed against that proceeding.
3. As many as six grounds have been mentioned in the writ petition. Grounds 1 and 2 involve certain disputed questions of fact. It is open to the petitioner to establish his version of the facts before the labour court, Meerut. It is not necessary to decide those disputed questions of fact in the writ petition.
4. The labour court framed one preliminary issue. At one stage the labour court was inclined to decide the preliminary issue before dealing with other issues. But subsequently the labour court declined to decide that point as a preliminary issue. The labour court had a discretion in the matter. It could either decide issue I as a preliminary issue before taking up other issues, or it could take issue 1 along with other issues. The procedure adopted by the labour court cannot be said to be illegal.
5. Annexure B to the affidavit is the order passed by the State Government on 30 November 1960 referring the industrial dispute to the labour court. Annexure B is in English. Mr. A.K. Kirty appearing for the petitioner contended that the order of reference is invalid, because it is in English and not in Hindi. The same point was raised before me in Jain Glass Works, Ltd. v. State Civil Miscellaneous Writ No. 3066 of 1960. That writ petition was decided by me yesterday. For reasons given in my judgment in Writ No. 3066 of 1960, I hold that the order of reference dated 30 November 1960 cannot be considered invalid, simply because the order is in the English language.
6. Thus all the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner fail. The petition is dismissed with costs (one set of costs in favour of respondent 2 and another set of costs in favour of respondent 6). The stay order, dated 19 May 1961, is vacated.