Judgment U. P. Sinha J. 1. The petitioners have challenged the Award of the Industrial tribunal dated 18/12/1978, whereby the reference made to it has been held to be not justified in view of the fact that the representation of the workman has not yet been disposed of and is pending before the Management for consideration. 2. The terms of referance was : "whetner the demand of Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union that Shri r. N. Sinha, Sr. Legal Assistant, Shri Shree Krishna Bahadur, Legal assistant and Shri B. P. Chaturdhari Legal Assistant, three employees of the Legal Section of Heavy Engineering Croporation limited, Ranchi, are entitled or not to get the pay scale of Rs.350/-475/- (pre-revised) which later on changed into the pay scale of rs.615-860/-after joining the legal Department and after the end of training period. If so, from which date they should get that pay scale?" 3. The workmen concerned in this case are the three Law Graduates who had been appointed as Upper Divison Clerk. They were promoted to the post of assistants. Later, a Board was constituted to select persons for the law department and these three workmen alongwith others appeared at the interview. They were selected and under the order of the Chairman, they were to be placed on the next higher scale, of course, alter the completion of their probationary period for six months. Consequently they joined the Legal Section and completed the period of probation. They were thus entitled to the scale of Rs.350-475/- (now revised to Rs.615-850) on completion of the probationery period. The Management did not do so. A protest was made on which the Management designated them as legal assistants but without any change in their emoluments. Further, the Management removed their names from seniority list of Assistants and the desired scale of pay was given to them only from November, 1970 to 1972. They again reiterated their claim that they were entitled to the higher scale of pay from the dates of their completion of probationary period between december, 1967 to January, 1969 because special training had been imparted to them. The union took up their cause with the Management which ultimately led to the Reference. 4. The case of the Management was that mere selection to work as legal assistant did not entitle them to a higher scale of pay than what was admissible to them as assistants. The union took up their cause with the Management which ultimately led to the Reference. 4. The case of the Management was that mere selection to work as legal assistant did not entitle them to a higher scale of pay than what was admissible to them as assistants. Even though they were put in legal section, they continued as Assistants and it was not a new post. The management had not sanctioned a separate post for Legal Assistants and when applications had been invited, scale of pay, as admissible to Assistants, had been offered to the candidates. The management had a right to transfer an employee from one department to the other a d the employee could not claim a higher pay on account of such transfer. Training was imparted to them because it was a new job and without training it would have been difficult for them to carry on the work. On their promotion as senior Legal Assistants the contestants were given higher scale of pay of Rs.475/-625/- revised to Rs.615-850/-which they got with effect from November, 1970 to december, 1972. 5. It appears from the Award that the Tribunal did not decide the question under reference merely on the ground that the representation of the workmen was pending with the Management and the same had not yet been disposed of. The Tribunal, therefore, held that the reference itself was not justified. It may be stated that the representation was made by those workman in October, 19-74 and, it is strange, that the same is still pending with the management. If the Management did not choose to dispose of the representation for long years and when the reference was made by the Government of Bihar referring the dispute for adjudication to the Tribunal in the year 1975. , the tribunal should have exercised its jurisdiction in deciding the dispute under reference. 6. In this view of the matter, the Award is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the industrial Tribunal to record its finding on the dispute referred to it under reference dated 17-12-1975. , the tribunal should have exercised its jurisdiction in deciding the dispute under reference. 6. In this view of the matter, the Award is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the industrial Tribunal to record its finding on the dispute referred to it under reference dated 17-12-1975. Since the reference is of the year 1975, I hope and trust that the Tribunal will soon take up this matter for hearing and conclude its finding as early as possible after hearing the parties and after giving them all reasonable opportunity to lead such evidence as may be thought necessary in deciding the dispute under reference. 7. This application is disposed of with the directions indicated above. Decided accordingly.