ORDER
M.Y. Eqbal, J.
1. Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner, who is a workmen’s Union, is challenging the order 14.5.2005 passed by the Industrial Tribunal whereby their application for treating the deposition given on behalf of the workmen as evidence for the purpose of deciding the reference case, has been rejected.
3. It appears that earlier the Tribunal gave an award which was challenged in this Court in CWJC. No. 134 of 1999(R) and CWJC No. 359 of 1999(R). The writ petitions were dismissed and then both the Management and the Workmen Union filed Letters Patent Appeals, being Nos. 383 of 2000 and 378 of 2000. The Letters Patent Appeals were disposed of on 13.5.2003. By the said judgment, the Division Bench in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the judgment held as under:
12. In the light of what has been stated above, we set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and that of the Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi and remand the proceeding to the industrial
Tribunal, Ranchi for a fresh trial and decision in accordance with law, The Tribunal will consider the contentions raised by the parties and take a decision on the question whether the workmen identified by it, subject to the right given by this judgment to the Management to challenge the identification are entitled to absorption on facts and in law. We are conscious that this is an old dispute and that it may not be just or proper not to decide the matter finally in this Court. But in absence of consideration of the relevant question by the Tribunal in the first instance, we are constrained to remit the proceeding. But we think that the Tribunal should be directed to expedite the proceedings and take a fresh decision within a period of six months from this date.
13. We thus allow these appeals. We set aside the decision of the learned Single Judge and allow the writ petitions filed by the Management and the registered Trade Union and quash the award of the Industrial Tribunal at Ranchi and remit the reference to the Tribunal for a fresh decision in accordance with law and as indicated in this judgment and as directed by the Supreme Court in the order dated 22.8.1995. We direct the parties to appear before the Tribunal for receiving orders as to posting of the Reference on 14.7.2003.
4. From perusal of the aforesaid order it is clear that the reference was remitted to the Tribunal for a fresh trial and decision.
5. The petitioner has filed Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court against the judgment of Division Bench passed in the aforementioned L.P.As and the said matter is pending in Supreme Court.
6. Taking into consideration all these facts and particularly the fact that the Division Bench remitted back the matter for fresh trial and decision, I am of the opinion that the Court below has not committed any illegality in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner.
This writ petition is dismissed.