( 1 ) BOTH these Special Civil Applications challenge the same award of the Industrial Tribunal being the award dated July 15 1978 and we will dispose of both these matters by this common judgment.

( 2 ) SPECIAL Civil Application No. 2129 of 1978 is filed by the management of Bank of Baroda. The first respondent are the workmen of Bank of Baroda and notice of this petition is required to be served on K. R. Mehta Executive Member of the All India Bank of Baroda Employees Union. The second respondent is Valiben widow of Shamjibhai Sinduria residing at Saiyadpura Surat. Special Civil Application No. 2504 of 1978 is filed by Valiben widow of Shamjibhai Sinduria and respondent No. 1 is the Presiding Officer of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal The second respondent is the Regional Manager of Bank of Baroda and the third respondent is K. R. Mehta.

( 3 ) THE facts leading to this litigation are as follows: On April 13 1976 the management of Bank of Baroda terminated the services of one Suresh S. Sinduria who was a permanent employee of the Bank and he was last posted with the Bank of Baroda at Surat. He was working as a clerk at Parsi Sheri Branch of the Bank of Surat. His services were terminated on April 13 1976 A dispute was raised and ultimately; an individual reference under sec. 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act was made to the Industrial Tribunal. The reference was in these terms:"whether the action of the management of the Bank of Baroda Southern Region Ahmedabad in terminating the services of Shri S. S. Sinduria clerk Parsi Sheri Branch of the Bank with effect from 13-4-1976 is justified ? If not to what relief is the workman concerned entitled to "?sinduria the clerk concerned died on March 9 1978 but before he died his evidence was recorded at least with regard to the preliminary issues arising in the reference. On March 16 1978 there was an award on preliminary points and that award was termed as Award Part I. In that award it was held by the Tribunal that the dispute that was raised was an individual dispute under sec. 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act and secondly it was held that the union had a right to represent the workman concerned under the provisions of sec. 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act. After the death of the workman concerned an application was filed by the mother of S. S. Sinduria in her capacity as heir and legal representative of her deceased son S. S. Sinduria and she prayed that she be allowed to be joined as a party to the reference and any of the reliefs as might be deemed proper should be granted. This was objected to by the Bank and the reply of the Bank of this application was dated July 6 1978 The application was presented by the union representing the workman who were second party to the reference and the request of the union was that since the concerned workman Sinduria had expired on March 9 1978 at Surat during the pendency of the reference his mother Srimati Valiben should be added as a party to the reference. On this application the Tribunal held that the industrial dispute still survived as the remaining workmen employed by the Bank were interested in the ultimate adjudication of that dispute which would ultimately concern all workmen in the employment of the Bank; this being the legal position it would not be possible according to the Tribunal to accept contention of the Bank that because the concerned workman had expired the industrial dispute covered by the reference had come to an end and therefore the reference itself had become infructuous. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the industrial dispute covered by the reference was still alive and therefore it would have to be adjudicated upon on its merits and that the reference would therefore legally lie for adjudication and the parties would be permitted to lead evidence if they so desired for the ultimate adjudication of the industrial dispute covered by the reference. The Tribunal however decided that