JUDGMENT D.P. Singh, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. These groups of writ petitions, substantially raise identical issues with some differences on facts which is immaterial for their decision. Therefore, all of them can be disposed of together. For the sake of convenience, facts of Writ Petition No. 5159 of 1987 are being noted and the said writ petition shall be the leading case.
3. The primary question raised in the present writ petitions are, whether the State Government was justified in delegating its power under Section 6J (2) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. Subsidiary to it, it has also been urged that the petitioner had been deprived of full opportunity of hearing.
4. This writ petition is substantially based on the observations of a learned single Judge of this Court dated 16.8.1983. The observations is quoted in paragraph 3 of the writ petition. The petitioner had contended that they are entitled to the benefit of Section 6J. Earlier when the petitioners had approached this Court, they were able to establish that power under Section 6J (2) had not been delegated. Thus, only the State Government could decide whether the petitioners were entitled to the benefit under Section 6J. This Court in the earlier judgment had directed the petitioners to approach the State Government. It appears that they did approach the State Government but the State Government, while the proceedings were pending, delegated its power under Section 6J (2) to the Deputy Labour Commissioner. The challenge is that the delegation of power is illegal and the judgment of this Court dated 16.8.1983, primarily directed the State Government itself to decide the question under Section 6J (2). Though, a copy of the judgment of this Court has not been filed or made available during arguments, portion of it is quoted in paragraph 3 of the writ petition. For ready reference, it is quoted herein below :
"We have seen that in Section 1 (1) and Section 6J (2) the adjudicatory forums are the State Government. Since the forum in both the provisions are one and the same viz. the State Government, there will be no difficulty in the State Government deciding the question referred to it in Section 6J (2). Since both the matters are before the State Government it will not be necessary at all to make a reference as contemplated by Section 6J (2). However, learned counsel for the petitioners have pointed out that in the exercise of the powers under Section 11A of the Act, the State Government has delegated its power of deciding proceedings under Section 6H (1) to the Deputy Labour Commissioner and it is in pursuance of that delegations of powers that in these cases the Deputy Labour Commissioner is exercising jurisdiction. Learned counsel have also stated that so far the State Government has not delegated its powers under Section 6J (2) to any other authority. In other words powers under Section 6J (2) are confined to the State Government. If that be the position, the Deputy Labour Commissioner may either make a reference himself to the State Government for its decision under Section 6J (2) or stay proceedings before him so as to enable the petitioners to approach the State Government and obtain its decision. The Deputy Labour Commissioner will resume the hearing of the proceedings pending before him after the State Government has given its decision. In case the State Government has delegated its powers to the Deputy Labour Commissioner for deciding the dispute under Section 6J (2) that Officer (Deputy Labour Commissioner) will proceed to decide the matter pending before him, while doing so he shall decide the question, raised by the petitioners that their cases fall in the second part of the Section 6J (1) of the Act.
As a result of the foregoing discussion the impugned orders dated 12th August, 1981, passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner are quashed. He is directed to proceed in the matters in the manner indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs."
5. From a perusal of the judgment of this Court, it is apparent that the State Government was set at liberty to decide the question itself or delegate its power. The State Government has now delegated its power vide the impugned order dated 20.1.1987. The argument that this judgment had directed the State Government to decide the issue is not correct. The Court had not placed any embargo on the powers of the State Government to delegate its power. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that before delegation, it ought to have been given an opportunity, is devoid of any merit. In my view, the State Government is empowered under Section 11A to delegate any power under the Act to any subordinate authority, thus, in my view, this writ petition has no merit and deserves to be dismissed.
6. This writ petition has been pending for about 15 years in this Court and thus it appears necessary that the respondent No. 2 may be directed to decide the lis pending before him within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
7. The Registrar General of this Court is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the Regional Deputy Labour Commissioner, 32-Garden Road, Agra, for compliance of this order.
8. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed subject to the observations made herein above. No order as to cost.