JUDGMENT Hari Swarup, J. - The petitioner has challenged the order of the U. P. Public Services Tribunal by which the petitioner's reference of claim was dismissed on 28-9-1978 as infructuous and also the order dismissing the petitioner's application for review of that order. 2. The petitioner has also prayed for a writ to quash the order by which the petitioner has been reverted from the post of Assistant Consolidation Officer to the post of Consolidator. This order was challenged by the petitioner even earlier by way of a writ petition and this court had dismissed it on the ground of the availability of alternative remedy to the petitioner under the U. P. Public Services (Tribunals) Act. 3. The petitioner had filed a reference of claim before the Tribunal and on 25-9-1978 moved an application for withdrawal of the reference. This application was taken up by the Tribunal on 28-9-1978 but the petitioner was not present. It is not necessary here to decide the controversy if the petitioner bad knowledge of this date or not. On 28-9-1978 the Tribunal passed the following order: "Neither the petitioner nor his counsel appeared for hearing on the application D/- 25-9-1978 whereby it was prayed that the petition be allowed to be withdrawn. The petition is dismissed as infructuous." The petitioner feeling aggrieved filed an application for review of the order dated 28-9-1978 but this application was dismissed by the Tribunal on 17-2-1979 (Annexure 15). We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned chief standing counsel for the respondent and they have no objection to the petition being disposed of today as the decision is based on controversial facts. 4. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the tribunal had no power to dismiss the reference of claim as infructuous because it had not become infructuous. In the review order the Tribunal has not) dealt with this plea of the petitioner and we find in the order no reference to or justification of the Tribunal's earlier order dismissing the reference of claim as infructuous. If a petitioner applies for withdrawal of a claim, it does not make the claim infructuous. The application can either be dismissed or allowed. If it is dismissed the reference remains pending. If a petitioner applies for withdrawal of a claim, it does not make the claim infructuous. The application can either be dismissed or allowed. If it is dismissed the reference remains pending. If it is allowed, the reference is permitted to be withdrawn and it may be open to the petitioner to file it again if sufficient cause is shown. The dismissal of a reference as in fructuous shuts the doors which is not the result when a reference is withdrawn. The order of the 'Tribunal dated 28-9-1978 thus causes a subtantial injury to the petitioner. 5. Section 5 of the U. P. Public Services (Tribunals) Act provides that the Tribunal though not bound by the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure shall be guided by the principles of natural justice. Sub-section (5) of Section 5 gives to the Tribunal some powers which court is vested within a Civil suit under the Code of Civil Procedure. Clauses (h) and (i) of sub-section (5) of Section 5 provide for some of the matters which are dealt with by S. 5. They are : "(h) dismissing a reference for default or deciding it ex parte. (i) setting aside an order of dismissal for default or an order passed by it ex parte". The reference in the present case was admittedly dismissed ex parte and the application of the petitioner was maintainable for setting it aside. The principle of natural justice may also require that an application for withdrawal of the reference is maintainable but that application has to be decided in accordance with law. If a petitioner does not appear on the date fixed for the consideration of the application for withdrawal though he had sufficient notice, it may be possible for the Tribunal to dismiss it for default or to allow it ex parte. In the present case, the Tribunal has done neither; it has not dismissed the application for withdrawal in default nor has it allowed it ex parte in the sense that it has not permitted the withdrawal of the reference but has dismissed it as infructuous. 6. The order of the Tribunal cannot accordingly be said to be either in conformity with the principles of natural justice or in conformity with the principles of law, contained in the Code of Civil Procedure. 6. The order of the Tribunal cannot accordingly be said to be either in conformity with the principles of natural justice or in conformity with the principles of law, contained in the Code of Civil Procedure. Thus the order of the Tribunal rejecting the petitioner's reference as infructuous is without any authority of law. 7. In the result, we allow the petition and quash the order of the Tribunal dated 28-9-1978 filed as Annexure 10 and the order dated 17-2-1979 filed as Annexure 15 to the Writ Petition. Let a further direction be issued to the Tribunal to re-register the petitioner's reference of claim as well as his application for withdrawal and decide them in accordance with law after giving to the petitioner opportunity of hearing. The matter may be taken up by the Tribunal within one month of the receipt of this order by the Tribunal. Costs easy.