The present writ petition has been preferred for issuance of a writ of certioran or any other order or direction for quashing the award dated 8th October, 1999, passed In Reference Case No. 22 of 1991, whereby, the learned Presiding Officer, Labour C0urt, has held that no industrial dispute, as defined under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, existed or apprehended in between M/s 1 ala Iron & Steel Company Ltd. (in short 'TISCO') Management and the petitioners herein at the time of making reference.

2. The facts, in brief, as submitted by the counselor the petitioners, is set out as under:

The petitioners were employed by the erstwhile Indian Tube Company between the year 1983 and 1985. It is submitted that on 1.8.1989 the petitioners along with Sri M.K. Jha raised a demand before the Management through a letter, addressed to the Secretary to the Recreation Club of TISCO Tube Division, Jamshedpur, for parity and proper wages, based on which a conciliation proceeding was initiated by the statutory authority in which the Management of TISCO also participated. The demands were not fulfilled and, accordingly, a failure report was submitted. The Government of Bihar vide its Notification dated 19.6.1991 referred the Industrial dispute to respondent NO.1 for adjudication. The reference is quoted as under:

1. Whether the workmen of TISCO Tubes Recreation Club, Baridih, Jamshedpur are entitled to get pay scale and other benefits admissible to the workmen of TISCO Welfare Department, Community Development Centre Hospital, Health Department and Electrical Department? If affirmative, then what pay they are entitled to and from what?

2. Whether the workmen of TISCO Tubes Division Recreation Club, Baridih. Jamshedpur should be treated as the workmen of TISCO Tubes Division or not?

3. Pleadings were completed and written submissions were also filed in Reference Case No. 22 of 1991. It appears that respondent NO.2, TISCO, filed a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 2357 of 1991 (R), questioning the maintainability of reference made under Section. 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act. This Hon'ble Court disposed of the said writ petition vide order dated 19.11.1991 with the following directions:

"In view of the fact that the petitioner may raise the contentions raised in this writ application before respondent NO.1 who may decide the jurisdictional points raised by the petitioner, we are not inclined to entertain this writ application at this stage."

4. Thereafter, witnesses were examined from both sides and sever3.1 documents, which were exhibited, were also considered. Finally the impugned award under challenge dated 8.10.1999 was passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur vide which the learned Labour Court held as under:

"On the basis of above discussed facts and circumstances, I come to the conclusion that no industrial dispute as defined under Section 2(k) of the Act exist or apprehended in between the TISCO Management and the four claimants at the time of making reference. As such the reference is bad and incompetent and the same is not maintainable. "

5. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, challenging the aforesaid award.

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent NO.2 has submitted that there was no employer-employee relationship and the Hon'ble High Court specifically on their petition while disposing of the writ petition gave liberty to them to raise the jurisdictional points before respondent No. 1 and finally after hearing the arguments, the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur, came to the conclusion that no industrial dispute as defined under Section 2(k) of the Act existed between the TISCO Management and the claimants/petitioners at the time of making reference. The counsel for the respondents further submits that the issue has attained finality and, accordingly, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

7. The learned coun