JUDGMENT G. C. Bharuka, J.- The present writ application has been directed against the award dated 26.6.1987 rendered by the Respondent Tribunal in reference no. 76 of 1985 as contained in Annexure 4 to this application. 2. The reference to the Tribunal was made under Section 10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by the Central. Government by order dated 1st June, 1985. The terms of the reference were as under: "Whether the demand of United Coal Workers' Union that the Wagon Loaders mentioned in the Annexure to this order should be paid appropriate wages directly by the management of Sirka Colliery of M/s Central Coal Fields Ltd. and that their record of employment should be maintained properly by the said management is justified? If so, to which relief are the said Wagon Loaders entitled?" 3. Along with the said order of reference, names and details of 470 persons claiming themselves to be the Wagon Loaders was enclosed. A copy of the said reference has been filed as Annexure 1 to this writ application. 4. The genesis of dispute seems to be that at the Railway sidings of Sirka Colliery of M/s Central Coal Fields Ltd. Wagon Loaders arc employed for loading coal in wagons. According to the record of the management they had only 336 regularly employed Wagon Loaders. But according to the petitioner - Union raising the dispute, a large number of other persons were also employed in the work of wagon loading without bringing themselves on record as regularly employed Wagon Loaders and thus they were being subjected to unfair labour practice. It appears that the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Hazaribagh, who has been examined as WW. 11 before the Tribunal, along with two other Labour Enforcement Officers, had inspected the two Railway sidings in question on 4.5.1984 and had made' out a list of 300 persons at the instance of the Union, who were alleged to be working as Wagon Loaders in irregular manner, vide Ext. W 16. 5. Before the Tribunal witnesses were examined on behalf of the Union as well as Management and a large number of documents were also filed on behalf of both sides. The Tribunal, on consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case, came to the conclusion that, "at the Sirka sidings there were Wagon Loaders working besides the management's Wagon Loaders on roll." 6. The Tribunal, on consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case, came to the conclusion that, "at the Sirka sidings there were Wagon Loaders working besides the management's Wagon Loaders on roll." 6. The Union examined 9 witnesses, apart from other witnesses, who gave out the names of 23 persons who were irregularly employed. The assertion of the Management on the other hand was that most of the persons whose names appear in the list of W.W. 11, the Labour Enforcement Officer, were imposters, who were paraded before him only for the purpose of getting their names inducted in the record of the Management by raising false claims. 7. The Tribunal, faced with the tremendous task of ascertaining the identity of the persons who were bonafidely employed as Wagon Loaders, formulated the following two criteria for identification and giving proper reliefs: (i) To find out common names appearing in the list (Ext. W/6) prepared by W.W. 11 and the list of 470 persons enclosed with the order of reference. (ii) to accept the names workers witnesses Wagon Loaders. 8. Now according to the set out by the described as Tribunal there were only 110 names common in the two lists, referred to above, out of which, according to the assertions of the' Management 7 persons have already been employed by the Management on the ground that they were dependants of disabled Wagon Loaders, leaving 103 Wagon Loaders to be regularly employed on this basis. The Tribunal then found that the witnesses on behalf of the Workmen had given out the names of 23 persons, out of whom, 11 are already appearing in the list of the common persons as appeared from the above said two lists leaving 12 persons. Thus the Tribunal directed that as per the documentary as well as oral evidence a total number of 115 persons (103 + 12) as detailed above were entitled for the relief in terms of the reference. 9. The only submission which has been advanced before me is that even if the basis, which has been adopted by the Tribunal, can be accepted as valid basis for identification of persons entitled for relief in terms of the reference, still on that very basis 43 more persons are entitled to similar relief, who are fulfilling the necessary test, and. The only submission which has been advanced before me is that even if the basis, which has been adopted by the Tribunal, can be accepted as valid basis for identification of persons entitled for relief in terms of the reference, still on that very basis 43 more persons are entitled to similar relief, who are fulfilling the necessary test, and. the Tribunal by committing an error of record, has left out their names. The list of such persons has been set out in Annexure 6 to the writ application. Next submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that even while granting relief on the basis of oral evidence, similar error of record has been committed. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that though on the basis of depositions of W.W. 6 and W.W. 7 (Sl. no. 60 and 38 of the order of reference), the persons named by them as Wagon Loaders, have been given the relief but as per their evidence they were also working as Wagon Loaders for last several years but the Tribunal has left out their names and, as such, they arc also entitled to the same relief. 10. In respect of the above statement, which is based on facts and figures, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Management, could not seriously dispute the said submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. Even in the counter affidavit, this aspect has not been seriously and specifically dealt with and denied. 11. Considering the rival 'contentions of the parties, in my opinion, the reasonings and submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, merit consideration and if the facts as stated in the writ application as well as those placed at the Bar, are correct then at least 45 more persons, as discussed above, arc entitled to the same reliefs, which have been granted to 115 persons, referred to above. 12. Keeping in view the above facts, I am remanding the matter to the Tribunal only for a limited purpose of ascertaining the aforesaid facts with regard to the claim of 45 persons and if the same is found to be a fact, then appropriate order granting relief to them will be passed by the Tribunal to such number of person whose case/claim is found to be true, within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. 13. 13. With the aforesaid directions and observations, this writ application is allowed to the extent indicated above. However, there shall be no order as to costs in the facts and circumstances of this case.