An industrial dispute under Section 33(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has special reference to a dispute which has been referred to the court and cannot include any other difference which may arise subsequent to the reference.

( 1 ) THE petitioner was employed by Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) as Conductor since 1983. His services were terminated vide order dated 30. 4. 1985 under Clause 9 (b) of the DRTA (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Regulations, 1952 (hereinafter to be called as "regulations" ). It may be noted that services of large number of employees of DTC were terminated at that point of time invoking provisions of Clause 9 (b) of Regulations. This regulation laid down that services even of a regular employee can be terminated by giving three months notice without assigning any reasons or holding any enquiry. Many of these terminated persons filed writ petitions challenging the termination order and also challenging the vires of Regulation 9 (b ). A Division Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 14. 5. 1986 in the case entitled DTC Mazdoor Congress v. Union of India and Another dedared Regulation 9 (b) as unconstitutional and directed reinstatement of persons whose services were terminated after invoking of Clause 9 (b) of Regulations. (It may be mentioned that the aforesaid judgment of this Court has been upheld by the Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Transport Corporation v. DTCMazdoor Congress, reported in AIR 1991 SC 101 ). Petitioner had not filed any writ petition against his termination order dated 30. 4. 1985. Instead he raised an industrial dispute by sending demand notice dated 28. 1o. 1987. This demand notice is sent after the aforesaid judgment of the High Court. Since DTC did not accede to his demand, he approached Conciliations Officer and raised industrial dispute. As the conciliations proceedings ended in failure, the appropriate Government made reference of the dispute for adjudication by Labour Court No. IX vide order dated 8. 11. 1988 with the following terms of reference: "whether the termination of the services of Sh. Krishan Pal Singh is illegal and/or unjustified and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect. "

( 2 ) ON receipt of reference by the Labour Court, notices were issued to both the parties. Petitioner filed his statement of claim to which written statement was filed by DTC raising various preliminary objections about validity of the reference. On merits, it was pleaded that petitioner/workman was caught by special checking squad for selling bogus tickets in Bus No. 4027 Route No. 450 Delux and he was challaned vide Challan No. 120318 by S/sh. Pritam Singh and Harbans Singh, ATI for issuing 12 bogus tickets of Re. l. 00 each. Besides one block of 42 unpunched tickets of Re. 1. 00 was found in his possession which was not entered in his Day Bill. The said tickets were issued to another conductor Sh. Nain Singh, B. No. 15669 whose tickets were stolen. The matter was got investigated through Vigilance Section who found the workman guilty and that is why his services were terminated.

( 3 ) DURING the pendency of reference, interim award was passed on 16. 10. 1989 directing the management to pay 75% of the wages last drawn by the petitioner. At that time, the appeal of the DTC against the judgment dated 14. 5. 1986 passed by High Court was pending in Supreme Court. It appears that after the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of this Court, DTC reinstated the petitioner also in May, 1991.

( 4 ) IT may be mentioned that High Court while delivering judgment dated 14. 5. 1986 had given liberty to DTC to take appropriate departmental action against the workers whose services were terminated by invoking Regulation 9 (b ). Accordingly, on 6. 11. 1992 a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner. Petitioner filed an application before the Labour Court where the reference was pending for restraining the DTC from taking action without permission of tine Court. On 4. 11. 1993 on this application of the petitioner, order was passed by the Labour Court observing that the Court was not empowered under the Industrial Disputes Act