HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1233 of 2025 (M/S) Kavita and others .....Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and others .….Respondents Present:- Mr. D.S. Mehta, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Suyash Pant, Standing Counsel for the State. Mr. Manoj Kumar, Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 8. Ms. Khushboo Tiwari Sharma, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for the respondent no. 9. JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) By means of the instant petition, the petitioners seek declaration that closure of the factory dated 30.12.2024 be declared as illegal and void ab initio. There are other related reliefs also. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners were working in M/s B.S.T. Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 9, Sector 9, IIE, Sidcul, Pantnagar, District Rudrapur (“the Factory”), but the Factory has been suddenly closed without adhering to the statutory provisions. 4. Learned State Counsel was required to get instructions. 5. Learned State Counsel would submit that a reference under Section 4K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“UPID Act”) has already been made to the Industrial Tribunal, Haldwani. 2 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the matter may be decided with the direction to the Industrial Tribunal to decide the reference, as expeditiously as possible. 7. Since the matter has already been referred under Section 4K of the UPID Act, the writ petition may not be entertained. However, the Industrial Tribunal is requested to decide the reference, as expeditiously as possible. 8. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly at the admission stage itself. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 15.05.2025 Avneet/