Abdul Nazeer, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the order in W.P.No.81584/2010 dated 6.4.2011 whereby the Learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and has set-aside the order passed by the Labour Court, Gulbarga, in Ref.No.50/2006 dated 25.9.2009.

2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are as under:

"Devendrappa was the husband of the first appellant and father of the other appellants. He had been working with the North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘Corporation’), Bidar Division, Bidar as a Driver. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and it was alleged that he had remained unauthorisedly absent for duty from 25.3.1994 to 27.7.1994. After holding an enquiry, the disciplinary authority had dismissed him from service on 22.6.1995. Devendrappa died on 23.12.1995. His wife and children challenged the order of dismissal by filing a claim petition under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘Act’ for short) in KID No.151/2000 before the Labour Court, Gulbarga. The Labour Court dismissed the claim petition on 31.12.2002 on the ground of limitation and also on merits."

3. The appellants again raised an industrial dispute before the competent authority. Since the conciliation failed, the mater was referred to the Labour Court, Gulbarga, for adjudication wherein it was numbered as Ref.No.50/2006. The Labour Court by Order dated 25.9.2009 has allowed the reference in part. The order of dismissal of the workman was set-aside and the Corporation was directed to pay the terminal benefits to the appellants.

4. The Corporation challenged the said order by filing a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.81584/2010 mainly on the ground that the reference made by the State Government under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act was incompetent inasmuch as the Labour Court had already dealt with the matter on merits. Accepting the said contention, the Learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition by Order dated 6.4.2011 and has quashed the award of the Labour Court in Ref.No.50/2006 dated 25.9.2009.

5. Learned Counsel for the appellants would contend that the claim petition filed by the appellants under Section 10(4-A) of the Act before the Labour Court in KID NO.151/2000 was barred by time. The Labour Court ought to have dismissed the petition on the ground of delay alone. The Labour Court should not have passed the order on merits since the claim petition was invalid. Thus, the order of the Labour Court in dismissing the claim petition on merits is a nullity. That is why the claimants raised a dispute again before the competent authority. Since the conciliation failed, the matter was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act. The Labour Court on reference has held that the dismissal of the workman was invalid. Learned Single Judge without taking note of the fact that the order of the Labour Court in Section 10(4-A) proceedings was a nullity, has allowed the writ petition.

6. It is further argued that the Industrial Disputes Act is a social welfare legislation enacted to promote peace and thwart exploitation in industries. It must receive broad interpretation. In this connection, he has relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in SMT. DHANALAKSHMI AND ANOTHER vs. THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS (ILR 1999 KAR 269). He has also relied on the decision of this Court in KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT COPRORATION vs. KHALEEL AHMED AND ANOTHER (ILR 2002 KAR 3827), in support of his contention that the remedy under Section 10(4-A) has to be availed within six months. The order passed by the Labour Court under Section 10(4-A) of the Act on merits is totally without jurisdiction. Therefore, the 2nd claim petition under Section 10(1)(c) was maintainable.

7. On the other hand, Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the Labour Court has dismissed the application filed by the appellants under Section