- (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)A reference was made to the industrial tribunal-cum-labour court (hereinafter referred to as the tribunal) for adjudication of a dispute in terms of section 10 (d) read with section 12 (5) of the Industrial Disputes Act on the question of termination of the services of the workman and forfeiture of the certain amount of wages for the period of suspension. The tribunal by an adjudication made on 8.8.1985 held that though notices had been served upon the appellant he had remained ex-parte. The tribunal proceeded to state that there does not remain any dispute between the parties and made the adjudication in that manner. Thereafter, an application was filed by the appellant and by an order made on 29.8.1987, the same was disposed of by the tribunal stating that the appellant had not evinced any interest in the dispute, that there has been delay in seeking restoration of those proceedings and, therefore, it is not proper to cancel the award after having issued notification after the award was made.
(3.)However, the government by another order dated 20. 12.1988 made a reference of a dispute to the tribunal on the same questions on which earlier reference had been made. On this occasion, the tribunal adjudicated the matter and made an award which was challenged before the high Court by the respondents. The High court found that the tribunal had given a finding on the earlier occasion that no industrial dispute exists which is in itself a determination of the question relating to the industrial dispute and would fall within the definition of term "award" under the Industrial Disputes Act and, therefore, second reference was incompetent. Inasmuch as no claim petition had been filed by the appellant on the earlier occasion when the reference was made, it is not permissible for them to agitate the matter any further. We fail to appreciate neither the manner in which the tribunal disposed of the matter on the first occasion nor the manner of approach made by the High Court.