JUDGMENT A.N. Verma, J. - This petition is directed against an industrial award dated 6-10-1980 given by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal V, U.P. Meerut, rejecting the claim of the petitioner - Which is a worker's union - for revision of pay-scale and category applicable to Assistant Store Keepers and Store Munshis. 2. The dispute relates to a demand by Store Keepers and Store Munshis employed in the establishment of the State Electricity Board at Meerut for revision of their category and pay-scale during the period 1-4-1969 to 31-3 74. The Tribunal has negatived the claim of the petitioner union which was sousing the cause of the concerned workmen on the ground that the same is barred by a previous award which was made on the basis of a similar demand for the same period. 3. Briefly, the relevant facts are that the Central Wage Board submitted a report making recommendations for the wage structure of employees of the Electricity Undertakings whereupon the it a Government issued a notification on 11-2-71 accepting the recommendation of the Wage Board. The Electricity Board in its turn issued an order outlining the categories and scales of pay for their workmen including Store Keepers and Store Munshis. The Assistant Store Keepers and Store Munshies as well as the Store Keepers seem to have been dissatisfied with the said orders of the State Electricity Board. This eventually gave rise to two industrial disputes one relating to Assistant Store Keepers and Store Munshies and the other relating to Store Keepers. On 27-12-1973 the Industrial Tribunal gave an award in respect of Assistant Store Keepers and Store Munshies directing an upward revision in the pay-scale and category of these workmen. The award became final and these workmen appear to have been quite content with the same. They accepted the revised pay scale and category in terms of the said award until 1977 in which year they started asking for a fresh revision of their pay scale and category for the same period beginning from 1-4-1969 to 31-3-1974. It seems, encouraged by the award given in respect of Store Keepers, they started claiming a fresh revision of their category and pay-escape in respect of the same period, namely, five years beginning from 1-4-1969. Eventually the State Government referred the dispute raised by the petition adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal. It seems, encouraged by the award given in respect of Store Keepers, they started claiming a fresh revision of their category and pay-escape in respect of the same period, namely, five years beginning from 1-4-1969. Eventually the State Government referred the dispute raised by the petition adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal. The dispute referred by the State Government was whether the employers were justified in not revising the pay-scale and category of Assistant Store Keepers and More Munshies. It is significant to note that the reference by the State Government was not limited to any specific period. It is not disputed that these workmen were quite satisfied with the pay scale and category allowed and admissible in respect of such employees as existing on the date of reference of the dispute. Their demand appears to have been confined to the same period, namely, five years beginning from 1-4-1969 which was the period which was the subject of adjudication on the previous occasion which resulted in the award dated 27-12-1973 as mentioned above. 4. Before the Industrial Tribunal the employers raised a preliminary objection. Their contention was that the claim of the petitioner in respect of the period from 1-4-1969 to 31-3-1974 Was squarely covered by the previous award and it was hence not open to the workmen to ask for a fresh revision of their pay scales for the same period. The Tribunal has upheld the objection. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties. 1 am of the opinion that the tribunal was right in taking that view. The clear stand of the workmen is that their claim is in respect of the same period which is covered by the previous award. It is indisputable that both on the general principles of res-judicata as well as the express provisions of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, namely (vide Sections 6(5), 6-C etc.) parties to an award cannot re agitate issues which have already been adjudicated under a previous award. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the award rendered in 1975 in respect of Store Keepers conceding to them a higher pay-scale and category warranted a fresh look at the pay scale. This subsequent award made in 1975 afforded to them a fresh cause of action entitling them to ask for a fresh revision of the pay-scale and category. 1 am unable to agree. This subsequent award made in 1975 afforded to them a fresh cause of action entitling them to ask for a fresh revision of the pay-scale and category. 1 am unable to agree. The fact that the Store Keepers were granted better pay scales and category under the award made in their favour in 1975 could not by any stretch justify re-opening of the controversy which was finally adjudicated between the parties in 1973. One could understand a demand for an upward revision in the pay-scale and category of the Assistant Store Keeper and Store Munshis because of the award made in 1975 in favour of the Store Keepers for the future, that is, in respect of the period subsequent to the award of 1975. But that is not the case here. The petitioners are, as already observed, quite satisfied with their present category and scale of pay. They arc, however, seeking a fresh revision of their pay scale and category in respect of the period specifically covered by the previous award. To allow that claim would tantamount to permit them to circumvent the award which became final in 1973 between the parties. There was no such change in circumstances and no such fresh cause of action as might warrant, if at all revision of the pay scale granted to the petitioners under the previous award for the period in question. 7. The impugned award does not suffer from any illegality or error of jurisdiction so as to justify interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.