MEHROTRA, C. J. : This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Con­stitution by the Management of Kunjalal Debidutt Oil, Rice and Atta Mills of Fancy Bazaar, Gauhati asking for a writ of certiorari quashing the award made by the Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal, Assam. The State Govern­ment by its notification dated the 3ofh January 1961 under S. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter called "the Act") referred the following questions 'to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudica­tion: (1) Whether the Management of Kunjalal Debidutta Rice and Oil Mill are justified in deducting wages of Sri Bindeswari and 8 of hers for 15 days in the month of August 1959? (2) If not are they entitled to any relief? Two of her questions were referred to the Tribunal. But for the purpose of this petition it is not neces­sary to go into those questions. The Tribunal came to the conclusion on consideration of the •materials before it that the Management was not entitled to deduct fifty per cent of the wages for fifteen days in the month of August 1959 from the wages of the nine workmen. It is against this award that the present petition has been filed. (2) The main contention raised by .Mr, Lahiri for the petitioner before us is that the Tribunal having held that the provisions of Sections 25C to 25E of the Act do not apply to this industry as the workers employed are less than fifty on the average per working day was not justified in .awarding any amount of compensation to the workmen under-S. 256(1). The Tribunal has held that the present case comes under S. 25A of the Act and under the provisions of Ss. 25C to 25E are not attracted. But the Tribunal is of the view that if Ss. 25C and 25E are not attracted to this case that is no to the Tribunal examining the question if these deductions from the salary were justified - when the question has been referred to the tribunal under S. 10. Unless the question at detention is not an industrial dispute, the Tribunal was competent to go into that question. The Tribunal further held that in view of the given by the Management, the Management in a way specified that at least the workmen were entitled to the compensation on the principles embodied under S. 25C of the Act. Unless the question at detention is not an industrial dispute, the Tribunal was competent to go into that question. The Tribunal further held that in view of the given by the Management, the Management in a way specified that at least the workmen were entitled to the compensation on the principles embodied under S. 25C of the Act. (3) Mainly the point raised before us is that the prohibition contained in S. 25A is a statutory prohibition. Once a particular industry is guided by the provisions of S. 25A, the workmen of that industry are not entitled to get any compensation for the lay-off period. The Tribunal in effect has granted them the lay of computation.The statutory prohibition could ,not than the circumvented by the Tribunal. We do no think that it can be said in the present case having regard to the various documents placed before us by the parties that what the workmen were granted was any compensation by way lay off. Their clear case was that although the Management closed their mill or did not work their mill for some time, still as the workmen were in the employment of the management, -they were entitled to get their salary for the period during which the factory was closed and the deduction made from their salary was not justified. The correspondences which passed between the Management and the workmen also shows that they had not claimed any compensation for lay-off. In these circumstances unless the petitioner is able to show to as that there was any bar under the 'Act to give them full wages for the period during which they remained in the employment of the Management as the Management for justifiable reasons held to close the working of the mill, do not think that the Management was entitled to deduct any part of the wages from their salary. (4) Reliance has been placed "by "Mr. Lahiri in two cases South India Corporation -v. All Hemko, Cashewnut Factory Workers' Federation. reported in 1960-2'Lab LJ 103: (AIR 1960 Ker rules and Kohinoor Saw Mill Co. Ltd. v. State -A "Madras reported in AIR 1957 Mad 410. The facts of these cases are entirely different. Mr. Lahiri however relies upon these cases in support of his examinations. Lahiri in two cases South India Corporation -v. All Hemko, Cashewnut Factory Workers' Federation. reported in 1960-2'Lab LJ 103: (AIR 1960 Ker rules and Kohinoor Saw Mill Co. Ltd. v. State -A "Madras reported in AIR 1957 Mad 410. The facts of these cases are entirely different. Mr. Lahiri however relies upon these cases in support of his examinations. In the first case the point which was issued before the Tribunal was that the factory being a seasonal factory the provisions of Ss. 25C the rule were not attracted. The Tribunal in spite of holding that the provisions were not affected granted the compensation by way of lay of on the ground of social justice. That principle was of accepted by the Supreme Court and it was held that 'the principles of social justice do not •empower the Tribunal to go behind the provisions of the Act'. There it was held that the claim of 'the workmen was for compensation by way of lay­off. As we have already observed, in the present case from the correspondence as well as from the points referred it does not appear that there was -any claim of lay-off. What the workmen were claiming was that the deduction from their salary was not justified. They were not to our mind, demanding any lay-off compensation within the purview of S. 25C. The terms of reference are very 'explicit on this point. '(5) In the second case the only point which "was raised was that the Government has no power 'to grant or to refuse to grant exemption. The -only right given to Government under S. 2$A is to -decide on facts whether the factory is a seasonal factory or not and having so held the High Court decided for itself on the facts whether the factory was a seasonal factory or not. The fact that S. 25A -applies to the present case will only result in the non-application of provisions of Ss. 2jC to 35E and it will be treated as if for the purposes of the present dispute these sections were non­existent. , If these sections were non-existent, it cannot be said that the dispute raised with regard to the deduction from the amount of salary is not an industrial dispute. Nor can it be said that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to decide whether the deduction was or was. , If these sections were non-existent, it cannot be said that the dispute raised with regard to the deduction from the amount of salary is not an industrial dispute. Nor can it be said that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to decide whether the deduction was or was. not justified and if so to what extent. We do not think that there was ;any manifest error in law or that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction. The petition has thus •no -force and it is rejected with costs which we assess at Rs. 50/-. (6) S. K. DATTA J. : I agree. Petition rejected.