TAPEN SEN, J. - (1.) HEARD the parties.
(2.) IN this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the award dated 24.8.1995 (Annexure 5) passed by the respondent No. 1 (Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hazaribagh) by which he has declared the reference itself as bad in law. 2000 (84) FLR 162 it has been held at paragraph 28 that an Industrial Tribunal is a creation of the statute and it gets jurisdiction on the basis of reference. 4. In the instant case, the reference was "whether not to engage workmen on work in the factory from 30.12.1989 by M/s. Jupiter Iron Industries, Ranchi - Patna Road, Hurhuru, Hazaribagh is justified - 5. Before the respondent No. 1, the management straight away filed a preliminary written statement, wherein they, inter alia, pleaded that the concerned workmen were not the workmen of the management. They also stated that the concerned workmen were contractors workmen. They also stated that the matter before the Conciliation Officer related to lock out but the Conciliation Officer misunderstood the whole thing and the Government in that misconception referred a wrong dispute which does not exist at all. They also took other points and prayed that the aforementioned point be decided as a final point and not as a preliminary point. The petitioner -Union strongly protested to the aforementioned preliminary written statement and in their rejoinder thereto they stated that "in industrial jurisprudence, the points raised in the written statement is not decided as a preliminary issue and more so the jurisdiction of the Labour Court has not been challenged in a proper manner. They also stated that the validity of reference, its maintainability and jurisdiction cannot be challenged at any stage. It is stated at the Bar that in support of the aforementioned contention the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in the case of D.P. Maheshwari v. Delhi Administration and Ors., reported in AIR 1984 SC 153. The Supreme Court has held in the aforementioned judgment that the Tribunals entrusted with the task of adjudicating labour dispute where delay may lead to misery and jeopardize industrial peace, should decide all issues in dispute at the same time without trying some of them as preliminary issue. Now when we go through the award of the Labour Court, it is apparent that he framed the following four issues : - - (a) Is the present reference maintainable under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act? (b) Is the present industrial dispute beyond the jurisdiction of this Court? (c) On the basis of the facts and circumstances, can it be deduced that the action of M/s. Jupiter Iron Industries, Ranchi -Patna Road, Hazaribagh in not taking work from the concerned workmen with effect from 30.12.1989 was proper? (d) If not, then for this period to what reliefs are these workmen are entitled? 6. From a perusal of the aforesaid, it is evident that the issue No. (c) was the actual issue, which should have been dealt by the Labour Court. Instead of so doing, it straight away proceeded to deal with Issue No. (a) and (b) and came to a finding recorded as follows : - - "Uprokt tarkon key aadhar par main eis nishkarsh par pahoonchta boon ki yeh nirdeshit vivaad vishay vastu se sarvatha parey, itna aspast hai ki eis nyayalay dwara yeh nirdeshit nirnit kiya jaana sarvatha nyaysangat nahin hoga, eis prakar tathyon ke aadhar par yeh vivaad avaidh aw asangat hai." 7. So far as Issue No. (b) is concerned the Labour Court came to a finding that the industrial dispute was not as per terms of Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and therefore, it was beyond his jurisdiction. Having done so, the main issue was dealt with in a very cryptic manner in just two or three sentences. The judgment of the Supreme Court referred to above, i.e., in the case of National Engineering v. State of Rajasthan, (supra) the law has been well settled that a Tribunal cannot go into the question of validity of reference. In the instant case, the Labour Court has apparently gone into the question of validity of the reference and has come to a conclusion that this was beyond his jurisdiction. 8. In that view of the matter, the impugned award is set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent No. 1 for proceeding a fresh by dealing with all the issues, on the materials already available on record. 9. The Tribunal shall decide all the issue together within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It has been agreed by the counsels for both the parties that the parties shall not take unnecessary adjournments. 10. With the abovementioned directions and observations the instant writ application is disposed off.;