JUDGMENT B. P. Singh, J.- The petitioner in this writ application is the Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (in short, to be stated as B.C.C.L.) Employers in relation to Bararee Coke Plant. It has prayed for quashing of the award dated 12.1.1983 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal no. 2 in a Reference made u/s. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act answering the Reference in favour of the workman and holding that his retrenchment was illegal and that he shall be deemed to have continued in service. He accordingly directed his reinstatement w.e.f. 1.5.1972 which is the date on which the aforesaid Coke Plant stood nationalised under the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972. 2. The main submission urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the Reference itself was not competent in the absence of M/s. Barari Coke Company Ltd. which was the owner of the Coke Plant and which had passed the impugned order retrenching the workman concerned in the year 1971. According to the petitioner, the workman concerned was retrenched even before the management of the Coke Plant was taken over by the Central Government on 27.12.1971. It was, therefore, submitted that unless the order of retrenchment was set aside after hearing the then Management, namely, M/s. Barari Coke Company Ltd., no relief could be granted to the concerned workman. In the instant dispute, M/s. Barari Coke Company Ltd. not being a party the Reference itself was incompetent. 3. The Reference made bi the Central Government is in the following terms :- "Whether the action of the management of Bararee Coke Plant of Messrs Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Post Office Kusunda, District Dhanbad in terminating the services of shri Diplal Singh, Watchman with effect from the 19th October, 1971 vide Management's notice dated the 12th October, 1971 is justified? The Reference made bi the Central Government is in the following terms :- "Whether the action of the management of Bararee Coke Plant of Messrs Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Post Office Kusunda, District Dhanbad in terminating the services of shri Diplal Singh, Watchman with effect from the 19th October, 1971 vide Management's notice dated the 12th October, 1971 is justified? If not, to what relief is the workman concerned entitled ?" It may be noticed from the Reference made to the Tribunal that it proceeds on the basis that the termination of services of the concerned workman Sri Diplal Singh was by the Management of Banaree Coke Plant of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. The factual assumption made in the Reference appears to be erroneous since it is now admitted before this Court by learned counsel appearing on behalf of workman as also by the workman concerned in his deposition before the Industrial Tribunal, that at the relevant time he was working in the Bhulan Bararee Coke Plant which is a different Coke Plant though it was then owned by the same Company namely M/s. Bararee Coke Company Ltd. However, without taking any technical objection on this ground, I shall proceed on the basis that the termination of the services of the concerned workman working in the Bhulan Bararee Coke Plant is in question in the instant proceeding. 4. The petitioner in his written statement before the Tribunal raised a plea at the threshold that the Reference was not legally maintainable. It was stated that the concerned workman was never an employee of Bararee Coke Plant. The Management of the Bararee Coke Plant was taken over by the Central Government on 27.12.1971. W hen the management of the aforesaid Bararee Coke Plant was taken over, the concerned workman, namely, Diplal Singh, was not an employee of that Coke Plant and his name did not appear on the roll of that Coke Plant. There was, therefore, no relationship of employer-employee between the B. C. C. L. and the concerned workman at any time. From the Provident Fund records of the Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner, it appeared that the concerned workman was an employee of the Bhulan Bararee Coal Plant which was a separate establishment from the Bararee Coke Plant and situate in a different area. From the Provident Fund records of the Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner, it appeared that the concerned workman was an employee of the Bhulan Bararee Coal Plant which was a separate establishment from the Bararee Coke Plant and situate in a different area. Bhulan Bararee Coke Plant was closed w. e. f. 1.7.70 by its owner namely M/s Bararee Coke Company Ltd. and all its workmen were retrenched on account of closure of the establishment. The concerned workman Sri Diplal Singh and two others were however, retained in service as watchmen to guard the properties of M/s. Bararee Coke Company Ltd. Thereafter, by reason of an agreement executed on 14.6.71 between M/s. Bararee Coke Company Ltd. and M/s Pandey & Bijoy Krishna Sahai, the management of the Bhulan Bararee Coke Plant was transferred to the aforesaid Mis. Pandey & Bijoy Krishna Sahai on 14.6.71. The new management did not accept the liability of the workmen who were required to be retrenched and it was the responsibility of the erstwhile management, namely. M/s Bararee Coke Company Ltd. to pay the retrenchment compensation to the workman. Thereafter, when all the assets of M/s. Bararee Coke Company Ltd. were disposed of, it retrenched Sri Diplal Singh by notice dated 12.10.71 w. e. f. 19.10.71. Pay in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation were also paid to the aforesaid workman who accepted the same without any protest. He then applied for refund of his provident fund dues on 3.7.73 and withdrew the full amount from the office of the Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner. The instant dispute was raised after a lapse of almost nine years and was clearly motivated and not a genuine dispute. 5. On the other hand, in the written statement filed on behalf of the workman it was contended that the workman concerned was working as a watchman of Bararee Coke Plant owned by M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. He was an employee of B. C. C. L. long before the take over and subsequent nationalisation of the said plant under the Nationalisation Act. According to the workman, the services of Diplal Singh were terminated w. e. f. 19th October, 1971 without sufficient cause and without following the procedure laid down in the Industrial Disputes Act. According to the workman, the services of Diplal Singh were terminated w. e. f. 19th October, 1971 without sufficient cause and without following the procedure laid down in the Industrial Disputes Act. It was asserted that the concerned workman was in the employment of Bararee Coke Plant when the said Plant was taken over under an Ordinance by the Central Government on 17.10.1971. It was, thereafter, that the service of the concerned workman was terminated without any valid notice. The workman protested against the illegal termination of his services and approached the higher authorities but with no result. It was asserted that Barari Coke Plant was all along in operation: It was then submitted that when B. C. C. L. became the owner of the said Plant, all the workmen including the workman concerned of the Plant were deemed to be in the employment of the B. C. C. L. On these averments, the workman claimed reinstatement with full back wages and other benefits. The same contentions have been reiterated in the rejoinders filed on behalf of the management and the workman. 6. It will appear from the written statement filed on behalf of the workman that the concerned workman was employed in the Bararee Coke Plant and that his services were terminated by the B. C. C. L. after the management of the Coke Plant was taken over by the Central Government. It was admitted in paragraph 3 of the written statement, of the workman that the termination of the services of the workman concerned was w. e. f. 19th October 1971 and that the management of the aforesaid Plant was taken over under an Ordinance, by the Central Government on 17.10.1971. It was not disputed before me that under the Take Over Ordinance, the management of the Bararee Coke Plant was taken over on 27.12.1971. It is therefore, obvious that the termination of services of the concerned workman was by the erstwhile management and, not by the B.C.C.L. This is also borne out from the material placed on record to which I shall refer later. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the workman did not dispute before me that there were two Coke Plants owned by M/s. Bararee Coke Company Ltd., namely Bararee Coke Plant and the Bhulan Bararee Coke plant which were situated at two different places. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the workman did not dispute before me that there were two Coke Plants owned by M/s. Bararee Coke Company Ltd., namely Bararee Coke Plant and the Bhulan Bararee Coke plant which were situated at two different places. The management produced evidence to the effect that these Coke Plants were situate at two different places and are now under the administrative control of two different Area Managers, According to the petitioner, the two Coke Plants are two separate establishments though owned by the same management, Sri Baban Lal counsel for the workman concerned did not dispute that the workman namely, Diplal Singh was employed under Bhulan Bararee Coke Plant. He obviously could not challenge this fact on account of the admission of the concerned workman himself while deposing as W. W. 1 that since 1966 he was employed in the Bhutan Bararee Coke Plant. It was also not disputed before me that Bhulan Baraeee Coke Plant closed down w.e.f. 1st of July, 1971. Apart from the testimony of witnesses examined by the petitioner, there is documentary evidence to support this fact. Ext. M/7 dated 29.6.70, is information given by the managing agents of the Bararee Coke Company Ltd. to the Officer-in-charge of the of the Police Station stating that upon closure of the Bhulan Bararee Coke Plant, the Workmen had been retrenched after payment of compensation in accordance with the provisions of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was, however, apprehended that there may be some labour trouble and it was for that reason that necessary information had been given to the Officer-in-charge of the Police Station with copies to the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad, the S.D.O" Dhanbad and the Divisional Inspector of Police Sindri. It is, however, an admitted position that despite retrenchment of the workmen of Bhulan Bararee Coke Plant, three workmen were retained including the workman concerned for the purpose of guarding the properties of the Company. It appears that on 14.6.71 an agreement was entered into between the erstwhile management of the Bhulan Bararee Coke Plant and M/s. Pandey & Vijay Krishna Sahai whereby the management of the Coke Plant was handed over to the aforesaid M/s. Pandey & Vijoy Krishna Sahai but they did not agree to the continuance of the workmen as they wanted to employ their own workmen. It was the liability of Bararee Coke Company Ltd. to pay retrenchment compensation to the remaining workmen which included the concerned workman, Diplal Singh. 8. It is the case of the petitioner that after all the assets of M/s. Bararee Coke Company Ltd. had been disposed of, and there was no need to retain the watchmen, the services of those watchmen were also dispensed with. Since the Coke plant had already been taken over by M/s. Pandey & Bijoy Krishna Sabai under an agreement, a notice was, there fore, issued to the concerned workman which was marked as Ext. M/3 whereby the concerned workman was informed that his services will stand terminated w.e.f. 19th October, 1971 and that he shall be paid a month's wages in lieu of notice and compensation payable to him u/s. 25F of the Act which he was required to collect together with other dues before 19th October, 1971. He was also advised to vacate the Company's quarters. Ext. 6 is the A/d. card which has been filed on behalf of the petitioner to show that the aforesaid notice was served upon the concerned workman. The workman however denied the fact that any notice was served upon him. There is then Ext. M/5 which is a representation by four watchmen including the petitioner dated November 6, 1971 wherein the workman had complained about their retrenchment from service and had urged the management to keep them in service. The representation also mentions the fact that the Coke Plant at Barari had been closed for the time being not that there was chance of its being reopened and there were still many valuable material of the company at the closed Coke Plant which required to be watched. It was then stated in the representation that though the Coke Plant at Bhulan had been closed, main Coke Plant at Barari was still running and a good many workers who were junior to them were still working in that Coke Plant. It was, therefore, claimed that they should be employed at the Barari Coke plant. The concerned workman denied having signed this representation. However, Sri Baban Lal learned counsel appearing for the workman contended before me if it was satisfactorily established that the retrenchment of the concerned workman was done in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, particularly section 25F thereof, the workman could have no grievance. The concerned workman denied having signed this representation. However, Sri Baban Lal learned counsel appearing for the workman contended before me if it was satisfactorily established that the retrenchment of the concerned workman was done in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, particularly section 25F thereof, the workman could have no grievance. In the instant case, he submitted that the petitioner had failed to prove that the proper procedure had been followed and that there was compliance of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. 9. On the other hand Sri M. M Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in the absence of the erstwhile management who had, in fact, retrenched the concerned workman, the Reference itself was incompetent and bad in law. He contended that even on merit there was abundant material to show that Bhulan Barari Coke Plant bad been closed on 1.7.70 and all the workmen except three had been retrenched. Even those three workmen were retained only to keep a watch over the properties of the Barari Coke Company Ltd. Thereafter, when the Coke Plant was handed over to the contractors who were to run the same, after giving proper notice even the remaining workmen including the concerned workman were retrenched. He lastly submitted that in any event the order of retrenchment was passed in the year 1971. The Reference u/s. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act was made in the year 1982. There was an inordinate delay in making the Reference and there is no good explanation for the delay. He conceded that delay in making the Reference would not by itself invalidate the Reference, but the Tribunal while granting relief must take into consideration the inordinate delay. He, therefore, submitted that reinstatement with full back wages w.e.f. 1.5.72 was wholly unjustified. 10. The Tribunal answered the Reference in favour of the workman holding that there could be no retrenchment on the ground that the Plant had been leased out to a contractor. In such a case the workman would still Continue to be a workman of the establishment and he would be deemed to be an employee of the Plant which was being run by the ex-owner. In such a case the workman would still Continue to be a workman of the establishment and he would be deemed to be an employee of the Plant which was being run by the ex-owner. The Tribunal in effect held that since Barari Coke Plant and Bhulan Barari Coke Plant were owned by the same Company, namely, Barari Coke Company Ltd. both the Coke Plants must be taken to be one establishment and even if one of the Coke Plants had been closed down or was not being worked by the owner, the workmen of the dosed Coke plant must be deemed to be the workmen of the Plant which was being worked. It further observed that if it was found that the retrenchment of the workmen concerned was not in accordance with law and, therefore, invalid, he would be deemed to be a workman of the establishment. It held that since the workman concerned had not been retrenched after following the legal procedure envisaged u/s. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act he was not retrenched in the eye of law. Since he had not been validly retrenched he continued to be an employees of the Barari Coke Plant and, therefore, deemed to be a workman of the aforesaid Coke Plant at the time of take over of the same by this Central Government. It negatived the contention that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the concerned workman and the B.C.C.L. on the reasoning that since there was no valid retrenchment, the concerned workman continued to be a workman of the Coke Plant taken over by the Central Government and, therefore, became employee of the B.C.C.L. in view of the provisions of the Nationalisation Act. While considering the relief to be granted it observed that it appeared to be true that the concerned workman for a pretty long time had been loitering in the street for his re-employment and so he should be allowed full wages for the idle period. He directed reinstatement pf the concerned workman with effect from the 1st of May, 1972, that is, the date of nationalisation of the aforesaid Coke Plant. He also found the concerned workman entitled to back wages and other emoluments w.e.f. 1.5.72 and this had to be paid by the B.C.C.L. 11. He directed reinstatement pf the concerned workman with effect from the 1st of May, 1972, that is, the date of nationalisation of the aforesaid Coke Plant. He also found the concerned workman entitled to back wages and other emoluments w.e.f. 1.5.72 and this had to be paid by the B.C.C.L. 11. It is by now well setted that u/ s. 17 of the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972, every person who was a workman and had been -immediately before the appointed day, i. e. 1st of May 1972, in the employment of a Coking Coal Mine or Coke Oven Plant shall become on and from the appointed day, an employee of the Central Government or as the case may be of Govt. company in which right, title and interest of such mine or plant vested under the Act. The question arose as to what would be the right of those employees of the Coke Mines or Coke Oven Plants whose names were not borne on the rolls of the concerned coal mine or coke oven plant by reason of the fact that their services had been terminated and the dispute relating thereto was pending adjudication. In such a case it has been held by the Supreme Court that if ultimately the dispute is decided in favour of the workman and it is held that the termination of his service was not valid, he would be deemed to have been in employment of the concerned Coke Mine or Coke Oven Plant immediately before the appointed day. It is also well settled by decisions of the Supreme Court that in a case where the ex-owner of the Coal Mine terminated the services of any workman before the Nationalisation Acts came into force, and pending adjudication before a Tribunal such a coal mine was nationalised under any of the Nationalisation Acts, and subsequent thereto the termination of the services of the workman concerned, is held to be illegal and he is found entitled to arrears of wages, the liability of the former owner to pay arrears of wages would still be there till the date of the nationalisation of the coal mines. For the period subsequent to the date of nationalisation of such coat mine, the liability will be that of the Central Government or the Govt. For the period subsequent to the date of nationalisation of such coat mine, the liability will be that of the Central Government or the Govt. company in which right, tide or interest of such mine or plant vested under the Act. 12. It, therefore, follows that where the services of a workman is terminated by the employer before the nationalisation of the coal mine or coke oven plant concerned, such a workman would not be deemed to be a workman of the coal mine or plant concerned immediately before the appointed day because on the appointed day he cannot be considered to be in the employment of the concerned mine or plant. However, if a dispute is pending adjudication relating to the termination of the employment of such an employee, certain legal consequences ensue depending upon the result of such adjudication. If it is held that the termination of the service of the workman concerned was in accordance with law, the workman concerned cannot claim employment under the Central Government or the concerned Govt. Company u/s. 17(1) of the Coking Coal Mine (Natioanalisation) Act, 1972. However, if the adjudication ends in favour of the workman concerned and it is held that the order terminating his employment was invalid, and the workman is entitled to reinstatement and arrears of wages, then in such a case it will be deemed that he was a workman employed in the concerned coal mine or plant immediately before the appointed day and as such be deemed to have become on and from the appointed day, an employee of the Central Government or the concerned Govt. Company. So far as arrears of wages are concerned for the period up to the appointed day, the erstwhile owners shall be liable for the period subsequent to the appointed day, the Central Government or the Govt. company shall be liable. In my view, it has been rightly submitted on behalf of B.C.C.L. that where the employment of a workman is terminated by the ex-employer, in the adjudication that may follow, the ex-employer is a necessary party and in the absence of the ex-employer there can be no valid adjudication. It is basic to the jurisprudence administered in this country that if the action of any person or authority is challenged that person or authority must be heard before a decision can be given on the validity of its action. It is basic to the jurisprudence administered in this country that if the action of any person or authority is challenged that person or authority must be heard before a decision can be given on the validity of its action. But, that apart, depending upon the result of the adjudication a liability may be created against the ex-owner because it may be found liable to pay arrears of wages to the concerned workman for the period beginning from the date of termination of employment till the appointed day under the Act. It, therefore, follows that such an adjudication can be done only in presence of the ex-employer. No doubt even the Central Govt. or the Govt. Company concerned may be heard in such an adjudication, but that does not mean that the dispute between the workman and the ex-employer who had terminated his employment, can be decided in the absence of the ex-employer whose order terminating the employment is in question. 13. In the instant case, the order terminating the employment of the concerned workman was passed by the ex-employer, Barari Coke Company Ltd. Admittedly, the aforesaid Coke Company Ltd. was not a party in the Reference nor was it heard at any stage. In the absence of the Barari Coke Company Ltd it has been held that the order passed by it terminating the employment of the concerned workman was bad because it did not fulfil the requirements of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. In my view, when such a dispute was referred by the Central Government to the Industrial Tribunal it was obligatory that tire ex-employer namely, Barari Coke Company Ltd. ought to have been heard and should have been made a party to the Reference. In the absence of the aforesaid company, the Reference itself was invalid. As I have pointed out earlier this serious lacuna arose on account of a basic misconception of fact as reflected in the terms of Reference. The terms of Reference proceeded on the basis that the concerned workman was an employee of the Barari Coke Plant and his services had been terminated by the Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Since it is found that the workman concerned was an employee of the Bhulan Barari Coke Plant and his services had been terminated by the erstwhile owner, namely. The terms of Reference proceeded on the basis that the concerned workman was an employee of the Barari Coke Plant and his services had been terminated by the Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Since it is found that the workman concerned was an employee of the Bhulan Barari Coke Plant and his services had been terminated by the erstwhile owner, namely. Barari Coke company Ltd the Reference suffered from a serious infirmity and the adjudication which proceeded in the absence of the erstwhile owner who had terminated the employment must be deemed to be wholly illegal. I, therefore, hold that the Reference was invalid and the Tribunal could not have held the order terminating the employment of the concerned workman to be invalid in the absence of the erstwhile employer who had terminated such employment. 14. Learned counsel for the workman referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in A. I. R. 1978 Supreme Court 979. I find that the view that I have taken is fully in accord with the legal proposition laid down in the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court. Moreover, in the case before the Supreme Court, the Reference was made to the Industrial Tribunal in October, 1970 and it appears from the report that the ex-employer of the colliery was also a party to the Reference since the Tribunal granted reliefs against the erstwhile management as well. That was not a case where the order of the former management dismissing the employees was set aside in an adjudication in which the former management was not a party. Learned counsel also referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in A. I. R. 1970 Supreme Court 1217. (Bihar State Road Transport Corporation v. State of Bihar and others). That case also does not support the contention of the workman. The question that arose in that case was whether the appellaJ.1t-Corporation was the successor in title of the Rajya Transport Authority and therefore, the obligations and liabilities of the authority devolved on the appellant-Corporation. The argument advanced before the Supreme Court was that it was not such a successor in title and that once the Rajya Transport Authority ceased to carryon the said undertaking the relationship of master and servant between that Authority and Respondent no. 3 ceased and, therefore, whatever remedy respondent no. The argument advanced before the Supreme Court was that it was not such a successor in title and that once the Rajya Transport Authority ceased to carryon the said undertaking the relationship of master and servant between that Authority and Respondent no. 3 ceased and, therefore, whatever remedy respondent no. 3 workman had would be against that Authority and not against the appellant-Corporation. Referring to the notification setting up the appellant-Corporation, the Supreme Court held that it was manifest that the powers and functions of the Rajya Transport Authority were to carryon and conduct the transport undertaking. For that purpose its principal function would be the administration and management of that undertaking which would necessitate the employment of an adequate staff of employees. Employment of such staff and regulating their conditions• of service, including disciplinary action, would normally be one of the powers or functions of the Rajya Transport Authority, which power or function, was also to be exercised and performed by the Appellant-Corporation under the said notification. Such a question does not arise in tile instant case. Section 17 of the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 in express terms makes provision relating to the employees of Coking Coal Mines and Coke Oven Plants which were nationalised under the Act. In my view the workman cannot derive any benefit from the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court. 15. In the view that I have taken it is not necessary for me to express any opinion on the other substantial questions raised by the counsel appearing on behalf of B.C.C.L. 16. This writ application is accordingly allowed and the award of the Presiding Officer of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.2 at Dhanbad in Reference no. 13/82 Annexture-8 is quashed. There shall be no order a to costs.