NAYUDU, J: In this Civil Rule, the legality and correctness of the award made by the Industrial Tribunal is called into ques­tion. The facts according to the petitioner's case are as follows: The petitioner is a company manufacturing iron rods under the direction and control or the Iron and Steel Controller, Calcutta. The factory run by this company was originally working on two shifts, and certain number of workmen had to be retrenched in July 1961 as the work-load became less and the factory had to change over to a single-shift system of working. In. consequence of this retrenchment, the workmen affected, apparently, had trespassed on the premises of the company and as­saulted the staff which led to criminal cases being filed against them by the Police. Subsequently, on 5-9-61, it is alleged that 36 workers working in the petitioner's factory left in a body from the premises of the factory without notice, after they worked for about an hour, and thereafter did not report to work. On 6-9-61, the manage­ment gave notice to these persons to join their duty im­mediately, but they apparently did not resume their work. This was followed by another notice dated 22-9-61, in which the workmen were asked to report for duty by 26-9-81. To this notice also, according to the petitioner, there was no response except from four of them who rejoined. Finally, there was a third notice on 28-9-61, wherein the workmen were asked to collect their dues by 30-9-61, and were informed that they had lost their lien on their services as they failed to report for duty an 26-9-61. (2) The workmen complained that they were ready and willing to rejoin work but the management refused to take them back. (2) The workmen complained that they were ready and willing to rejoin work but the management refused to take them back. On this, an industrial dispute arose, which was made the subject of a reference by the Gov­ernment under S. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, here­inafter referred to as the Act, and the Industrial Tribunal enquired into the matter and held that out of the 32 workmen, the question of whose reinstatement was made the subject of the reference, 16 workers could not attend because they were arrested in connection with the criminal case and were in jail, and that as soon as they were en­larged on bail, they reported for duty to the management, about the middle of October, 1961, and although the' management resumed work in the factory only by 9-12-61, these men were not taken back for work. As regards the other IS workers, the Tribunal held, on the evidence adduced before it, that they had, reported for duty always, but the management did not provide them with work, and that, therefore, the action of the management could mot be said to be justified. In both the sets of cases, the Tribunal held against the management and directed that the workmen should be reinstated and it was further declared that they would be entitled to full wages from 6.11.61 till they were absorbed in their service again. It is this decision of the Industrial Tribunal that is ques­tioned in this Civil Rule. (3J It is contended by Mr. Lahiri, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, that so far as the 16 workers, who were in jail having been, under arrest, they were conti­nuously absent from work and the management was" en­titled to terminate their services, and that the finding of the Industrial Tribunal and the order made by it direct­ing their reinstatement was, therefore, devoid of juris­diction and illegal. In the case of the other 16 worksrs, Mr. Lahiri contended that their case was not covered by the subject matter of the reference and that no orders could have been passed directing their reinstatement. (4) As 'regards the first set of 16 workers, who were under arrest and in jail and, therefore, did not report for duty, reliance is placed on the two decisions of the Supreme Court - in the case of Burn and Co. (4) As 'regards the first set of 16 workers, who were under arrest and in jail and, therefore, did not report for duty, reliance is placed on the two decisions of the Supreme Court - in the case of Burn and Co. v. Their Employees, (S) AIR 1957 SC 38 , and in the case of M/s Indian Iron and Steel Co., Ltd v. Their Workmen, AIR 1958 SC 130 . In the former case a workman was arrested under the West Bengal Security Act and detained in jail from 25-149 to 54-51. The company terminated his service on 22449, and the Tribunal made an order that he should be re-employed. The correctness of this order was considered in that case. The Appellate1 Tribunal accepted the claim on the ground that the workman had been discharged without the company framing a charge or holding an enquiry and that the rules of natural justice had been violated. In that connection Venkatarama Ayyar, J. observed as follows: "We are unable to agree with this decision. The ground of discharge is the continued absence of the em­ployee, and his inability to do work, and it is difficult to see what purpose would be served by a formal charge being delivered to him and what conceivable answer he could give thereto. The order of the Appellate Tribunal is manifestly erroneous and must be set aside." In the latter case, which followed the earlier one, S. K. Das, J. observed as follows: "The same principle should apply in the present case. It is true that the arrested men were not in a position to come to their work, because they had been arrested by the police. This may be unfortunate for them; but it would .be unjust to hold that in such circumstances the Company must always give leave when an application for leave is made. If a large number of workmen are arres­ted by the authorities in charge of law and order by rea­son of their questionable activities in connection with a labour dispute, as in this case, the work of the Company will be paralysed if the Company is forced to give leave to all of them for a more or less indefinite period. If a large number of workmen are arres­ted by the authorities in charge of law and order by rea­son of their questionable activities in connection with a labour dispute, as in this case, the work of the Company will be paralysed if the Company is forced to give leave to all of them for a more or less indefinite period. Such a principle will not be just; nor will it restore harmony between the labour and capital or ensure normal flow of production.......It may be readily accepted that if the workmen are arrested at the instance of the Com­pany for the purpose of victimisation and in order to get rid of them on the ostensible pretext of continued ab­sence, the position will be different. It will then be a colourable or mala fide exercise of power under the re­levant Standing Order; that, however, is not the case here." (5) Thai Industrial Tribunal has found in this case that there was no question of any victimisation by the management of the workmen. On this finding and on the finding that these 16 workmen were continuously absent from work, the conclusion reached by the Tribunal is neither just nor proper and the direction given by it that they should be reinstated is also not just nor proper. In the light of the observations of the Supreme Court, the only conclusion to reach is that the management was fully justified in treating these workmen as continuously absent and to terminate their services on that ground. No ex­ception could, therefore, be taken to the stand taken by the management in this behalf and the Tribunal's order, so far as these 16 workmen are concerned, would require to be set aside. (6) As regards the other 16 workmen, the finding of the Tribunal is as follows: "On a consideration of all the evidence and circum­stances I hold that these workers reported for duty al­ways, but the management did not provide them with work. Hence the action of the management cannot be said to be justified." This finding of fact is clearly binding on us, and we see no justification whatsoever for holding that it is wholly unjustified on the materials available before the Tribunal. In this connection, Mr. Lahiri contended that the question whether these workmen reported for duty or not was not the subject matter of the reference. In this connection, Mr. Lahiri contended that the question whether these workmen reported for duty or not was not the subject matter of the reference. In considering this aspect of the matter, it would be necessary to examine the reference itself and see what construction it is rea­sonably capable of. Paragraph 1 (a) of the reference is as follows: "Whether the management were justified, consequent on the workers' absence from duty with effect from 5th September 1961 in refusing to take them back on the ground that they failed to report for duty after the ex­piry of a month's notice warning them that their services will be dispensed with if they fail to report for duty on or before a certain date ?" The language employed in this clearly shows that the Tribunal had to go into the question, firstly whether the workmen reported themselves for duty, and, secondly, whether the management refused to take them back. Inci­dentally, the Tribunal would also determine side by side the question whether the refusal to take them back was justified on the ground that the workmen failed to report. In either view of the matter, the question whether the workmen did report themselves for duty or not is the crux of the reference, and on this, the Tribunal has found that the workmen had been reporting themselves to duty, and it is only that management that avoided giving them the work. In considering this reference, and references of this kind, as pointed out by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Express Newspapers (Private) Ltd., Madras v. The Workers, AIR 1963 SC 569 , we have to do so in a fair and reasonable manner. In this connection, the following observations of their Lordships at page 575, may be quoted: "Art order of reference hastily drawn or drawn In a casual manner often gives rise to unnecessary disoutes and thereby prolongs the life of industrial adjudication which must always be avoided. In this connection, the following observations of their Lordships at page 575, may be quoted: "Art order of reference hastily drawn or drawn In a casual manner often gives rise to unnecessary disoutes and thereby prolongs the life of industrial adjudication which must always be avoided. Even so, when the ques­tion of this kind is raised before the Courts, the Courts must attempt to construe the reference not too techni­cally or in a pedantic manner, but fairly and reasonably." Applying this test, we are satisfied that the reference in question is wide enough to enable the determination of the question whether the workmen had reported them­selves to duty within time or remained absent, and, therefore, the management was justified in refusing to take them back. No exception can be taken on the ground that the reference did not confer jurisdiction on the Tribunal -to determine the issue in question. (7) In the result, we uphold the award of the Tribu­nal in regard to these 16 workmen, but set aside the award in regard to the first mentioned 16 workers who failed to report themselves to duty by reason of their having been in jail in connection with the criminal case against them. The petition is accordingly allowed in part, as indicated above. We consider that in the particular circumstances of the case;, there should be no order as to costs. Petition partly allowed.