Heard Mr. A. K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G. M. Mishra, learned counsel for the Respondent.

2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this case is heard and disposed of at the stage of admission.

3. Challenge in this writ application is to the Award dated-16.06.2005, passed by the Labour Court, Jamshedpur in Reference Case No. 25 of 1997 (Annexure-9), whereby the Labour Court has held that the petitioner was not a workman.

4. The dispute between the petitioner and the Management arose upon the purported retirement of the petitioner from service. The contention of the Management was that at the relevant time, the petitioner had voluntarily applied for and elected for his premature retirement and by way of special consideration and in view of the long tenure of service and his personal difficulties, such permission for premature retirement was granted whereafter he was paid the entire Gratuity and other retiral benefits.

The petitioner contested the Management’s claim by asserting that he had never voluntarily opted for premature retirement and that such retirement was unlawfully forced upon him.

3.5. By Notification Dated 15.07.1997, a Reference was made by the Government of Bihar to the Labour Court to adjudicate upon the reference, which was as under:-

“Whether Shri B. Ojha, P. No. 61251, a Workman of M/s. Tata Iron & Steel Company Ltd., Jamshedpur is a workman under Section 2 (S) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and whether his retirement is justified? If not, what relief, he is entitled to?”

6. Terms of the reference was answered in the negative and against the petitioner by holding that the petitioner was not a workman as defined under Section 2 (S) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and therefore, the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the reference.

7. In response to the Notices, the Management appeared and submitted its written statements in the proceeding. The Management raised a preliminary issue, praying the court below to decide as to whether the petitioner was a “workman” or not? The learned court below decided the preliminary issue against the petitioner and in favour of the Management.

8. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ application before this Court vide W.P. (L) No. 636 of 2004. The Single Bench of this Court allowed the petitioner’s writ application and remanded the matter to the learned court below with a direction to decide all the relevant issues.

9. After the case was remanded, the learned court below proceeded to adjudicate upon the reference by framing as many as five issues, which are as under: -

(i) Whether Shri B. R. Ojha, employee is a workman? or

(ii) Whether the workman has voluntarily tendered his resignation?

(iii) Whether the termination of services of the workman is justified or not?

(iv) Whether disciplinary authority was competent to take action/accept resignation?

(v) To what relief, if any, the workman is entitled to?

10. Evidences were allowed to be adduced in the proceeding by and on behalf of the parties. Upon considering the evidences, the learned court below had recorded its finding that the employee Shri B. R. Ojha, was not a workman. Having arrived at such a finding, the learned court below observed that in view of its finding that the employee was not a workman, it had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the terms of reference and as such, did not record any finding on the remaining issues.

11. Mr. A. K. Sahani, arguing for the petitioner has assailed the impugned award on the ground that the learned court below has committed a grave error in confining its finding only to one issue, namely, the issue as to whether the petitioner is a workman or not and has not decided upon the other issues, which it ought to have done in accordance with the order passed by this Court in the earlier writ application filed by the petitioner and by which the learned Labour Court was directed to decide upon all the issu