JUDGMENT - C.S. DHARMADHIKARI, J.:---The petitioners in this case have challenged the notice dated 8/8/1981 issued by the Labour Court in Reference No. (IDA) B. No. 1 of 1981 on the ground that the said reference itself is not maintainable in view of the provisions of section 42-E of the Marathwada University Act, 1974. 2. It is clear from the record that respondent No. 1 Shri Mane, whose services were terminated by Kholeshwar Mahavidyalaya, Ambejogai, approached the College Tribunal for Marathwada University at Aurangabad. After hearing both the sides the Presiding Officer of the College Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by Shri Mane. The said order was not challenged by Shri Mane before any forum and therefore, under section 42-E the decision of the Tribunal became final and binding upon the parties. Section 42-E of the Act read as under: "42-E. Notwithstanding anything contained in any law or contract for the time being in force, the decision of the Tribunal on an appeal entertained and disposed of by it, shall be final and binding on the employee and the Management; and no suit, appeal or other legal proceeding shall lie in any Court or before any other/Tribunal authority, in respect of the matters decided by the Tribunal." From the provisions of sections 42-A, 42-B, 42-C and 42-D it is quite clear that the Tribunal had a power to sit in appeal over an order of termination issued by the Management. It had also a power to set aside the order of termination and pass an order of reinstatement etc. Therefore, the dispute now raised before the Labour Court is identical to one raised before the College Tribunal. There was an adjudication before the College Tribunal of the dispute raised and the final order was also passed dismissing the appeal. Section 42-E makes the said decision final and binding, and further lays down that no suit, appeal or other legal proceeding shall lie in any Court or before any other Tribunal authority in respect of the matters decided by the Tribunal. This is what is precisely sought to be done by the impugned notice issued by the Labour Court. It is well settled that if there is no existing industrial dispute, then there is nothing to be referred to the Labour Court or to adjudicate upon. This is what is precisely sought to be done by the impugned notice issued by the Labour Court. It is well settled that if there is no existing industrial dispute, then there is nothing to be referred to the Labour Court or to adjudicate upon. In the present case the dispute came to an end after the decision was given by the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal. In these circumstances, nothing survived which could be adjudicated upon or decided by the Labour Court. Therefore, the notice issued by the Labour Court is obviously without jurisdiction. 3. Hence the rule is made absolute. The notice issued by the Labour Court dated 8/8/1981 and all further proceedings pending in Reference No. (IDA) B. No. 1 of 1981 are quashed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Rule made absolute. -----