Judgment Satyeshwar Roy, J. 1. All these three writ petitions are being disposed of by this judgment as common law and facts are involved. 2. The workmen, respondents in the three writ petitions, were charge-sheeted by the Management. After holding a domestic enquiry, separate orders of dismissal were passed. The Management filed separate applications Under Sec.33 (2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, the Act) for approval. The applications were registered as Miscellaneous case No. 2/76, 1/80 and 6/80, Respondent No. 1 held that the respondents workmen were concerned workmen with regard to Reference case No. 39 of 1973 which was pending for adjudication before it. The order so passed by respondent No. 1 is contained in Annexure-15 both in CWJC No. 903/83 (R) and CWJC No. 1206/83 (R) and Annexure-14 in CWJC 1205/83 (R). In all these writ petitions, these annexures have been challenged. 3. In CWJC No. 903/83 (R), the final order passed in the miscellaneous case has also been challenged and the order is Annexure-18 to the writ application. Since the annexure was absolutely illegible no submission was made with regard to that by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Management. Both the sides admitted that the workmen were not concerned workmen in Reference No 5/74. 4. It was contended by Mr. Chatterjee appearing on behalf of the Management that respondents-workmen were not concerned workmen in Reference case No. 39/73 and the Management had tiled an application for approval by way of abundant caution. He contended that respondent No. 2 in all the cases had no concern with the reference that was pending before respondent No. I which involved payment of construction allowance ; therefore, the orders contained in Annexure-15 in the two writ petitions and Annexure-14 in one writ petition could not be sustained. 5. Mr. Roy, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent in CWJC No. 903/83 (R) made the main submission and the same was adopted by the learned Counsel appearing in two other writ petitions. It was contended by Mr. 5. Mr. Roy, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent in CWJC No. 903/83 (R) made the main submission and the same was adopted by the learned Counsel appearing in two other writ petitions. It was contended by Mr. Roy that in view of the nature of reference made under Sec.10(1)(c) of the Act, which was the subject-matter of Reference No. 39/75, all the respondents workmen must be held to be concerned workmen within the meaning of Sec.33(2) of the Act Both the sides in support of their respective contentions relied on New India Motor (p) Ltd. New Delhi V/s. K. T. Morris -- , and on Digwadih Colliery V/s. Ramji Singh (1964) 2 L.L.J. 143. 6. The question, therefore, is whether the order of respondent No. 1 as contained in Annexure-15 in two cases and Annexure-14 in the other case, dated 22-1982 can be held to be correct in law. 7. The question whether a workman is a concerned workman is a mixed question of fact and law. On the proved facts, what inference should be drawn shall be question of law. It is, therefore, necessary to see the nature of reference of Reference No 39/73. The notification referring the dispute in Annexure-7 in CWJC 903/83 (R) and that notification is common in the two other cases. In these cases, we are concerned with the following dispute : Whether or not on promotion personal pay of the substantive post should be added while fixing pay in the new scale of pay of the post to which promoted?. 8. There was controversy between the parties as to what was meant by personal pay referred to in the dispute. According to Mr. Chatterjee personal pay was construction allowance that was being paid to the workmen who were employed during the period of construction of the plant and according to Mr. Roy in view of the language used in the reference, it could not have been confined to construction allowance only. During the period of construction of the Bokaro Steel Plant, the Management employed a large number of workmen. They were given construction allowance. According to Mr. Chatterjee after the construction period was over, other benefits were given to the workmen and, therefore, the Management started curtailing the construction allowance. During the period of construction of the Bokaro Steel Plant, the Management employed a large number of workmen. They were given construction allowance. According to Mr. Chatterjee after the construction period was over, other benefits were given to the workmen and, therefore, the Management started curtailing the construction allowance. When such a workman was promoted, the Management fixed the scale of pay of such promoted workmen in the higher scale after deducting the personal pay. Mr. Chatterjee submitted that the construction allowance which was given to such workmen was given to them as personal pay. When that was the situation, dispute was raised by the Bokaro Steel Workers Union and the State Government ultimately referred the same for adjudication. With reference to the statements made in paragraph 5 and onwards of the writ petition being CWJC No. 903/83 (R) Mr. Chatterjee tried to buttress this fact and submitted that the Reference must be read keeping in view the demand that was raised by the workmen. He contended that since the demand raised was with regard to the construction allowance payable to workmen who were in the roll of Bokaro Steel up to 30th November, 1970, respondent No. 1 was bound to confine the reference to that demand. A copy of charter of demands is Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit filed in CWJC No. 1205 of 1983 (R) and that was the basis of reference. Item No. 1 thereof reads as follows: 1. Personal pay not to be absorbed at the time of promotion. At the time of promotion the personal pay in being absorbed with the result that there is no gain to the workers, it is, therefore, demanded that the personal pay should not be adjusted at the time of promotion as was done in Hindustan Steel Limited. 9. It may be noticed from Annexure-A that the demand raised by the Union was with regard to personal pay and there was no reference at all of construction allowance as contended by Mr. Chatterjee or any other such allowance The State Government also referred that demand for adjudication before respondent No. 1. That being the position, there is no scope for arguing that the demand must be confined to the construction allowance that was being paid by the Management to workmen who were on its rolls up to 30th November, 1970. Personal pay is not an unheard thing in service matters. That being the position, there is no scope for arguing that the demand must be confined to the construction allowance that was being paid by the Management to workmen who were on its rolls up to 30th November, 1970. Personal pay is not an unheard thing in service matters. There may be very many reasons for giving personal pay to an employee or a workman. The demand of the Union was that the personal pay should not be adjusted at the time of promotion as was being done by the Management keeping in view the nature of dispute in an adjudication, respondent No. 1 was required to decide whether-respondent workmen were concerned workmen within the meaning of law. It was required to take into consideration the effect of its decision on that dispute on the rest of the workman and the nature of representation of the workmen in that dispute. This is the law which has been laid down by the Supreme Court in the two cases referred above. So far the last part is concerned it is true that the Union has spoused the cause. But in all cases that may not be sufficient to hold that all the members of that Union should be deemed to be concerned workmen in the eyes of law. There must be some common feature in the two disputes because of which the respondent-workmen must be held to be workmen concerned in the dispute pending adjudication. In view of the nature of demand raised by the Union and referred for adjudication, the impact of that adjudication would have effected the respondent-workmen also. Keeping in view the legal position, it must be held that the respondent-workmen were concerned workmen in Reference No. 39/73. It may be noticed that Mr. Roy submitted that if the reference would have been with regard to construction allowance only the respondent workmen could not have been said to be concerned workmen. 10. During the course of submission, Mr. Chatterjee drew my attention to the award made in Reference No. 39/73, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure-15 in CWJC No. 1205/83 (R). This was delivered after the cases in question were disposed of. 10. During the course of submission, Mr. Chatterjee drew my attention to the award made in Reference No. 39/73, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure-15 in CWJC No. 1205/83 (R). This was delivered after the cases in question were disposed of. He urged that in view of the findings recorded by respondent No. 1 that the benefit would be confined only to the workmen who were on the rolls of the Management on 30th November, 1970, the respondent-workmen could not have been held to be concerned workmen. There is no dispute that the respondent workmen joined the service of the petitioner after 30th November, 1970. The question whether the respondent-workmen were concerned workmen or not cannot be decided on the basis of the final adjudication of Reference No. 39/73. The facts which were available when the reference was pending and when the orders for dismissal of respondent workmen were passed are the only materials required to be taken into consideration by respondent No. 1. I am, therefore of the opinion that the award that has been given in Reference No. 39/73 was not relevant for deciding whether respondent workmen were concerned workmen within the meaning of law. No authority contrary to this was brought to my notice. 11. For the reasons aforesaid, (do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Labour Court who held that the respondent workmen were the concerned workmen in Reference No. 39/73. All the three writ petitions are, therefore, dismissed. The Management shall pay a consolidated cost of Rs. 1,000.00 (one thousand) to the respondent-workmen.