Sabal Mazdoor Manch and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.

.....public purpose and the need for land for meeting that public purpose and to require the executive to take a decision, even a reasoned decision, with regard to the same in accordance with the statutory provisions, perhaps even within a reasonable time frame. however, the power of the court under article 226 must necessarily stop at that. thereafter, if the decision taken by the executive is capable of challenge and, there exist appropriate legal grounds for such challenge, it may also be open to the court to quash the decision and to require reconsideration. but no direction in the nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by the court under article 226 to the executive to necessarily acquire a particular area of a particular piece of land for a particular public purpose. section 4; compulsory acquisition of land powers of state government held, renewal of lease in favour of petitioners would not take away power of state government of compulsory acquisition of land. renewal of lease would at best be taken into consideration for determining quantum of compensation. - 3. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was well within the competence of the state government under section 4-k to have referred the dispute without asking any application from the individual members, as the existence of dispute was very much there, ignoring the reference made by the unregistered trade union.p.c. verma, j.1. this writ petition is directed against the order dated february 15, 1992 passed by the assistant labour commissioner refusing to refer the dispute for adjudication. it was not explained as to when the dispute arose whether the trade union was registered or not. now the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the trade union was not registered. in this case the reference has been rejected and it has been provided in the impugned order that individual workmen may raise their grievance.2. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under section 4-k of the u.p.i.d. act a reference to the labour court can be made in case of apprehended dispute or existing dispute. in the impugned order it has been found that the dispute is existing but at the time when the dispute arose the trade union was not in dispute, therefore, the existence of dispute was very much there and that is why the state government gave liberty to the individual workmen to raise their dispute.3. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was well within the competence of the state government under section 4-k to have referred the dispute without asking any application from the individual members, as the existence of dispute was very much there, ignoring the reference made by the unregistered trade union.4. i find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, i direct the state government to pass an order referring the dispute of those workmen who have not been relegated to the labour court for adjudication. the writ petition is disposed of accordingly.5. since the court has directed for reference, the delay in making the reference shall not come in the way.