1. We cannot sustain the judgment or the reasoning of the learned judge; and we think that this appeal should be allowed. The learned judge dismissed in limine the writ petition filed to quash Ext. P5 award of the Agricultural Tribunal, Palghat, passed under S.22 of the Kerala Agricultural Workers Act 1974. The dispute referred to the Tribunal by Ext. P1 order of reference, was regarding the denial of work employment to the three workmen concerned viz. (1) Aru (2) Janaki and (3) Rugmini. The reference had been preceded by attempts at conciliation and settlement, which failed and that had occasioned the reference to the Agricultural Tribunal for adjudication. The writ petitioner-appellant who was the land-owner filed Ex. P3 statement on 5-6-1976. In paragraph S therein, it was stated that the three workmen named in the reference were not his workmen and the question of providing work for them would not and could not arise. On the same day i. e. on 5-6-1976, a statement was filed by the Desiya Karshaka Thozhilali Federation, a Union on behalf of the workmen (Copy Ext. P4). The Tribunal thereafter passed Ext. P5 order dated 20th May, 1977 in which after a very cursory and