JUDGMENT Gopi Nath, J. - This writ petition challenges an award of the Labour Court, Agra published in the U.P. Gazette dated 13th May, 1972, Annexure 15-B to the writ petition. By this award the workmen employed in the petitioner Company drawing wages above Rs, 200/- per month have been granted house rent allowance at the rate of ten per cent per month as was granted to workmen getting wages below Rs. 200/- per month. 2. The petitioner is a public sector undertaking. Its shareholders include the Central Government and the Government of other States. The principal business of the petitioner-Company is to take contracts for execution of river valley projects and other allied civil works. It has its registered office at Delhi and other project offices at various places including Agra. The petitioner Company maintains an establishment at its Agra Unit. The workmen of the Agra Unit formed a Union ana made various demands to the petitioner. One of the demands was that the work charged staff should be paid an increased house rent allowance. The work charged staff consisted of two categories of workmen, one drawing less than Rs. 200/- per month and the other drawing more than Rs. 200/- per month. The workmen drawing less than Rs. 200/- per month were allowed house rent allowance at the rate of 71 per cent by the Company, while those drawing wages above Rs. 200/- per month were paid that allowance at the rate of Rs. 5/- per cent, of their wages in accordance with the Rules of the Corporation. The Union made a demand for the increase of the house rent allowance of the work charged staff. As a result the Government of Uttar Pradesh by its Notification dated 21st April, 1969 made a reference under `Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act to the Industrial Tribunal (II) Lucknow, for adjudication. The relevant issue for the present purposes was issue No. 3 which reads as follows: "Whether the basis and rate of house rent allowance at present prevalent needs revision? If so with what details? 3. Both parties appeared before the Industrial Tribunal. The workmen claimed an increase in allowance at a flat rate of 20% of their wages while the petitioner urged that the allowance paid to the employees - needed no revision. 4. The Industrial Tribunal gave an award on the 31st March, 1970. If so with what details? 3. Both parties appeared before the Industrial Tribunal. The workmen claimed an increase in allowance at a flat rate of 20% of their wages while the petitioner urged that the allowance paid to the employees - needed no revision. 4. The Industrial Tribunal gave an award on the 31st March, 1970. By that award the house rent allowance of the employees getting 7 per cent, was increased to 10 per cent. 5. According to the petitioner award gave a relief to the workmen drawing wages below Rs. 200/- per month and gave no relief to those drawing above - Rs. 200/- p.m. The workmen, on the other hand, claimed that the award gave benefit to both categories of workmen and the increase in the house rent allowance was applicable to those drawing wages below as well as above Rs. 200/- p. m. According to them 10 per cent, house rent allowance was allowed to all work charged employees. There was thus a difference of opinion between the workmen and the petitioner with respect to the interpretation of the award dated 31st March, 1970. Both parties made a joint representation to the State Government for making a reference to the appropriate authority' for the interpretation of the award, under Section 11-B of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, A reference was accordingly made to the Industrial Tribunal (II), Lucknow for interpretation of the award dated 31-3-1970 in respect of the question of the house rent allowance. By a decision dated 19th June, 1971, the Tribunal held as follows: "In the award (which means the award dated 31st March, 1970) there is absolutely' no mention of the employees getting house rent allowance at the rate of 5%. It is quite probable that the Tribunal did not consider them entitled for any' relief in view of their higher wages. Since the award is absolutely silent and has not dealt with the case of such employees, they are not covered by the award. The interpretation given by the workman's representative seems to be incorrect." 6. It appears that the workmen through their Union again raised a demand for the increase in the house rent allowance of work charged employees drawing above Rs. 200/- p.m. This demand was coupled with other demands also. They threatened the petitioner with a strike notice in case the demands were not conceded. It appears that the workmen through their Union again raised a demand for the increase in the house rent allowance of work charged employees drawing above Rs. 200/- p.m. This demand was coupled with other demands also. They threatened the petitioner with a strike notice in case the demands were not conceded. Some of the matters were settled between the parties while others remained unsettled and the Government was approached which made a reference to the Labour Court involving two issues: "(1) Whether the workmen mentioned in Annexure `A' getting 5% house rent allowance should be allowed 10% house rent allowance as has been paid to the other workers. If yes, with effect from which date and with what details? (2) Whether the workmen mentioned in Annexure (B) who have not been allowed weekly rest with wages is justified or legal. If not, with effect from which date the concerned workmen are entitled to get the benefit and with what details?" 7. We are, however, concerned with issue No. 1 only, viz., the increase in the house rent allowance from 5% to 10%. The Labour Court by an award published on 13th May, 1972 (Annexure 15-B to the writ petition) allowed an increase in the house rent allowance from 5% to 10% in respect of workmen mentioned in Annexure-A to the reference. 8. This award of the Labour Court has been challenged by the petitioner, inter alia, on the grounds: (1) that the earlier award dated 31 of March, 1970 having disposed off the question of increase in the house rent allowance of the workmen, and the workmen mentioned in Annexure-A to the reference having been disallowed any increase in that allowance the question of increase could not be raised again. This position, according to the learned counsel was clarified by the decision of the Industrial Tribunal dated 19th June, 1971 under Section 11-B of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, (2) that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to interpret the award dated 31-3-1970 as it had already been interpreted by the Industrial Tribunal under Section 11-B of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act by its decision dated 19th June, 1971, and (3) that no industrial dispute existed between the parties on the date of reference, made by the Government i.e. on 30th September, 1971. 9. 9. The first ground relates to an application of the principle of res judicata to an industrial dispute. The question is whether the first award dated March 31, 1970 published on April 10, 1970 (Annexure-6) decided the question of the increase of the house rent allowance of the work charged employees getting more than Rs. 200/- per month by way of wages and as such receiving 5% house rent allowance. The award makes no reference to their claim. It only considers the claim of those who were getting house rent allowance at the rate of 7% per cent. The award states: "Employers have not been able to advance any argument strong enough to resist increase in the house rent allowance from 7'A per cent, to ten per cent. I, therefore, allow it." The operative portion of the award reads: "My award is that the employers shall give to the work charged employees Dear Food allowance equivalent to the existing allowance plus ? (one third) thereof with effect from 1st April, 1969. They shall also give house rent allowance at the rate of 10 per cent, instead of 7% per cent, from the same date..................". 10. Sri B.C. Dev, learned counsel for the petitioner, urged that since the dispute related to the basis and rate of house rent allowance payable to the work charged employees, it included the claim of both categories, viz. those were receiving five per cent as well as those receiving 7%% as house rent allowance. According to learned counsel the award having allowed an increase in 7% house rent allowance, impliedly negatived the claim of those who were getting five per cent as house rent allowance. He has invited my attention to the written-statement of the workmen in the earlier adjudication case No. 78 of 1969 where item No. 3 of the controversy was as follows: "Whether the basis and rate of house rent allowance at present needs any revision? If so, with what details." According to learned counsel the question of the revision of the rate of house rent involved in the earlier dispute included the revision of the house rent allowance of those also who were getting five per cent. allowance. If so, with what details." According to learned counsel the question of the revision of the rate of house rent involved in the earlier dispute included the revision of the house rent allowance of those also who were getting five per cent. allowance. Learned counsel has referred to the decision of the Tribunal under Section 11-B dated 17th June, 1971 which states that since the award makes no mention of the employees getting house rent allowance at the rate of five per cent, it was quite probable that the Tribunal did not consider them entitled to any relief, It, however, states further that "since the award is absolutely silent and has not dealt with the case of such employees they are not covered by that award." Learned counsel has urged that the earlier award dated 31st March, 1970 impliedly negatived the claim of such employees and consequently their claim could not be re agitated. 11. Sri K.P. Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondents, urged that the earlier reference resulting in the award dated 31st March, 1970 did not include the case of the present employees. He has referred to paragraph 8 of the petition, written-statement of the Workmen in Adjudication Case No. 78 of 1969 (Annexure-3), Rejoinder statement by the petitioner in that case, and the rejoinder of the workmen filed therein. These documents do not make a. specific reference to those employees who were receiving house rent allowance at the rate of 5 per cent. According to learned counsel the omission is significant. The award, learned counsel urged, having dealt with the case of those only who were getting house rent allowance at 7/2.% supported his submission that the case of the present employees was neither involved nor considered in the earlier Adjudication Case No. 78 of 1969. 12. It, however, does not seem necessary to enter into the controversy whether the case of the employees getting five per cent, house rent allowance was involved in the earlier dispute or not as the first question to be decided is whether the principle of Res judicata, on the basis of implied findings applies to industrial adjudications. The principle of res judicata applicable to industrial adjudications, to my mind, is of a restricted nature. It applies only when there has been an express adjudication on merits. The principle of res judicata applicable to industrial adjudications, to my mind, is of a restricted nature. It applies only when there has been an express adjudication on merits. Implied adjudications in my opinion, would not attract the principle of res judicata to proceedings under Labour laws. In Dalmia Dadri Cement Ltd. v. Avtar Narain Gujral, (1962 (1) Lab LJ 261 at p. 264 (SC) their Lordships of the Supreme Court, while discussing the case of Burn and Co., Calcutta v. Their Employees, (1957 (1) Lab LJ 226) : ( AIR 1957 SC 38 ) observed "on the very principle of it, this decision can have application only where there is an adjudication by the Tribunal on merits." 13. In Remington Rand of India v. Its Workmen, (1962 (1) Lab LJ 287 at p. 289 (SC) it was held that "the decision of Industrial Disputes in a large number of matters may not easily admit the application of all technical implications of the doctrine of res judicata." 14. In Workmen of Balmer Lawrie and Co. Ltd. v. Balmer Lawrie and Co. Ltd., ( AIR 1964 SC 728 ) the Supreme Court held that the technical consideration of res judicata should not be allowed to hamper industrial adjudications. 15. In the Associated Cement Staff Union v. The Associated Cement Co. Ltd. Bombay, ( AIR 1964 SC 914 ) it was observed that "it is true that too frequent alterations of conditions of service by industrial adjudication have been generally deprecated by this Court for the reason that it is likely to disturb industrial peace and equilibrium. At the same time the Court has more than once pointed out the importance of remembering the dynamic nature of industrial relations. That is why the Court has, specially in the more recent decisions, refused to apply to industrial adjudications principles of res judicata that are meant and suited for ordinary civil litigation. 16. Dealing with the approach of Industrial Tribunals in respect of Industrial Disputes the Supreme Court in Kaya Constructions Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Its - Workmen, ( AIR 1959 SC 208 ) pointed out that they should not be unduly influenced by academic questions of law but should make an attempt to deal with the merits of each case according to its facts and circumstances. 17. (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Its - Workmen, ( AIR 1959 SC 208 ) pointed out that they should not be unduly influenced by academic questions of law but should make an attempt to deal with the merits of each case according to its facts and circumstances. 17. In Workmen of Dahingeapara Tea Estate v. Dahingeapara Tea Estate, ( AIR 1958 SC 1026 ) it was emphasised that abstract questions of law need not be dealt with in industrial adjudications. Settlement of disputes seem to be the main function of Industrial Tribunals. 18. In Shahdara (Delhi) Saharanpur Light Rly. Co. Ltd. and Shahdara-Saharanpur Rly. Workers' Union, (1969 (1) Lab LJ 734 at p. 742) : ( AIR 1969 SC 513 : 1969 Lab IC 837) their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that the trend in recent decisions is that application of technical rules such as res judicata, acquiescence, estoppel etc. are not appropriate to industrial adjudication. It was emphasised that cases should he decided on merits and technical considerations of res judicata should not be allowed to hamper discretion of industrial adjudication. Their Lordships further observed that it was doubtful whether principles analogous to res judicata would properly apply to industrial adjudication. 19. It is therefore, clear that principle of res judicata may apply to industrial proceedings only when, there had been an express adjudication on merits in earlier proceedings. 20. In the instant case the earlier award dated 31-3-1970 did not adjudicate upon the demand for the increase of 5 per cent, house rent allowance, Even if that demand was involved in adjudication case No. 78 of 69 no express adjudication was made in that regain. The present demand for increase is accordingly not barred by the principle of res judicata. 21. The second point regarding the-jurisdiction of the Labour Court to interpret the award dated 31-3-1970, relates to another aspect of the argument of res judicata. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the Industrial Tribunal in its decision dated 19th June, 1971 made an observation that "probably the Tribunal in its earlier award did not consider the respondents Nos. 4 to 19 entitled to any relief in View of their higher wages", the present adjudication of their demand was barred, as a finding had already been given in that case that they were not entitled to any increase on an interpretation of the earlier award. 22. 4 to 19 entitled to any relief in View of their higher wages", the present adjudication of their demand was barred, as a finding had already been given in that case that they were not entitled to any increase on an interpretation of the earlier award. 22. There is no force in this argument. We have already seen that the earlier award dated 31st December, 1970 was absolutely silent about the present claim. The decision of the Tribunal dated 19th June, 1971 under Section 11B itself states that since the award dated 31-3-1970 is silent about the claim in dispute, the employees involved are not covered by that award. It further holds that the claim of the workmen that tire earlier award increased the house rent allowance of the employees getting five per cent, house rent allowance, is incorrect. It is, therefore, clear that the earlier award dated 31-3-1970 did not adjudicate upon the claim of the present respondents Nos. 4 to 19, and the Industrial Tribunal, in its decision dated 19-6-1971 accepted this position. There being no adjudication on merits in the earlier award dated 31-3-1970 with regard to the present claim of the employees, the award dated 25-4-1972 is not barred by the principle of res judicata. 23. The last point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the reference made by the State Government was without jurisdiction. The point was canvassed under two heads: (i) that there was no industrial dispute, the reference consequently was incompetent, and (ii) that even if there was an industrial dispute what was referred was not the actual dispute involved. 24. Sri B.C. Dey urged that if no dispute is raised by the employees with the Management any request sent by them to the Government would only be a demand and not an industrial dispute. The Government in such a situation, would be incompetent to make a reference to the Labour Court. Learned counsel has relied on Sindhu Resettlement Corporation v. Industrial Tribunal of Gujarat, ( AIR 1968 SC 529 ) : (1968 Lab IC 526). That case has no application to the facts of the present case. In the instant case ten demands were made by the employees with the management through a demand notice dated 12-3-1971 (Annexure 10 to the petition) containing a strike threat also. That case has no application to the facts of the present case. In the instant case ten demands were made by the employees with the management through a demand notice dated 12-3-1971 (Annexure 10 to the petition) containing a strike threat also. Item No. 2 of the Sib demand related to an increase of the house rent allowance of the employees getting five per cent, house rent allowance. The matter went before the Conciliation Board .and though all the demands were not settled the strike notice was withdrawn. Sri B.C. Dey urged that since the strike notice was withdrawn there was no Industrial Dispute pending between the employees .and the management and the reference under Section 4-K was incompetent. The argument is misconceived. The withdrawal of the strike notice did not amount to the withdrawal of the demands. It only indicated the intention of the employees not to suspend work. Their willingness to work even though the demands were not conceded showed a gesture of their good-will only. It indicated that they would be pressing their demands but will not abstain from duty. Out of the ten demands the Conciliation Board brought about a Settlement 'in respect of some. Item No. 2 of the demand which related to an increase in the house-rent allowance remained unsettled. The matter was accordingly reported to the Gov-internment and it made a reference including the following dispute: "Whether the workmen mentioned in Annexure-A getting 5 per cent, house rent allowance should be allowed 10 per cent, house rent allowance as has been paid to She other workers? If yes with effect from which date and with what detail?'' 25. It will, thus, be seen that the [dispute with regard to the increase in the house rent allowance from 5 per cent, to ten per cent, was not settled between the parties. The dispute with regard to this matter, therefore, existed between the parities and the reference under Section 4-K was competent. 26. Learned counsel then urged that the demand raised by the notice dated 12tb August, 1971 was a general demand for the increase of five per cent house rent allowance to ten per cent. The demand was not in respect of individual workers and consequently the reference made by the State Government in respect of 16 workmen mentioned in Annexure-A to the reference was beyond the competence of the State Government. The demand was not in respect of individual workers and consequently the reference made by the State Government in respect of 16 workmen mentioned in Annexure-A to the reference was beyond the competence of the State Government. Reliance was placed "by the learned counsel on the case of Sindhu Resettlement Corporation Ltd., AIR 1968 SC 529 : (1968 Lab IC 526) (Supra) for the proposition that the reference must be consistent with the demand and if the reference is inconsistent with it the reference would be incompetent. In Sindhu Resettlement Corporation case, the retrenched employee and the Union espousing his cause confined the demand to retrenchment compensation only and did not make a demand for reinstatement. The reference, however, was in respect of reinstatement of the retrenched employee. The Supreme Court held that the reference was incompetent as the Government could make a reference only in respect of retrenchment compensation. This case is wholly inapplicable to the facts of the present case. The demand made through the demand notice in the instant case was a demand in respect of all the persons who were getting 5 per cent, house rent allowance. It included the 16 persons mentioned in Annexure-A to the reference, It may very well be that these 16 persons were the only persons affected. The reference made by the State Government only clarified the position and in order to obviate any vagueness or ambiguity in the reference a list of the workmen affected was given in Annexure-A to the reference. The employers were also well aware of the persons affected. In paragraph 5 of their written statement (Annexure-13 to the petition) they stated that "the workers in schedule A are the work-charged employees who were drawing the basic salary of more than Rs. 200/- per month". The case was fought out by the Management on the footing that the demand, as contained in the notice dated 12-8-1971 concerned the employees mentioned in the reference. No plea of prejudice was raised by the employers in the petition. The reference, accordingly, was not inconsistent with the demand, or the dispute raised by the employees. 27. Sri B.C. Dey lastly urged that the award has not considered the case on merits and no reason has been given why there should be an increase in the house rent allowance from 5 per cent, to 10 per cent. 28. The reference, accordingly, was not inconsistent with the demand, or the dispute raised by the employees. 27. Sri B.C. Dey lastly urged that the award has not considered the case on merits and no reason has been given why there should be an increase in the house rent allowance from 5 per cent, to 10 per cent. 28. We, however, find that in paragraph 8 of the award the labour Court has observed that the employers have not been able to show why the sixteen employees mentioned in the reference should be deprived of the benefit, in the house rent allowance which had been allowed to others. The Labour Court accordingly held that in order to maintain a parity and to avoid any discrimination it was felt desirable that the 16 workmen, involved in the dispute, should get house rent allowance at the rate of 10 per cent. The Labour Court has, therefore, given its reasons for increasing the house rent allowance. There is no force in this contention as well. 29. The petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs.