JUDGMENT D. RAJU, C.J.—The above writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-management seeking to quash the award of the 2nd respondent-Labour Court dated 1.4.1998 published on 20.6.19°8 in the Himachal Pradesh Official Gazette, which was rendered on I an application No. 88/94 filed under Section 33-A of the Industrial^ Disputes Act. 2. Among other things, the sheet anchor of the challenge projected by the management against the award in question is that the 3rd respondent worker having not pressed even the grievance of changing the condition of service, as envisaged under Section 33 of the Act, the application under Section 33~A itself became incompetent and, therefore, the question of deciding Issue No. 2 formulated by the Labour Court did not arise. It is also the contention of the petitioner-management that the very reference said to have been made in Reference No. 27/94 also was allowed to be disposed of and dismissed as not pressed on 13.3.1995. 3. The award under challenge disclose in internal page No. 4, particularly, paragraph 5 of the Issues framed for consideration, as follows: "1. Whether the respondent has changed the service conditions of the complainant Shri Banka Singh during the pendency of the proceedings under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, as alleged? If so, to what relief the complainant is entitled to? OPP 2. Whether the termination of the complainant is legal and justified? OPR 3. Relief." Paragraph 6 of the award makes it an interesting reading, which also requires to be set out and which is in the following terms: “6. During the course of the arguments, the petitioner does not press for Issue No. 1 and only Issue No. 2 remains for determination of the Court." 4. Heard learned Counsel appearing on either side. Before going into the question of the merits of the case relating to the legality and propriety of the termination of the service of the 3rd respondent, other than on the ground of violation of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, we called upon the learned Counsel for the respondent in the teeth of the very statement as disclosed from the award itself, as to how the Labour Court could have gone into the Issue No. 2 de hors Issue No. 1 and de hors the fact that the worker has chosen to give up the same by stating that it is not pressed. The learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent worker tried to contend that the statement contained therein may not be correct and there was no such indication that the worker has not pressed the Issue No. 1. We are afraid, we can countenance such a stand. While replying to the specific averment and the point raised in paragraph 9 of the writ petition in this connection, the 3rd respondent in his reply has stated as follows : "9. That the contents of para 9 of the writ petition are admitted being matter of record. It is, however, submitted that a complaint under Section 33-A arises only when the management contravene the provisions of Section 33 and, therefore, the only issue which was left open was whether termination of complainant is illegal and justified. The contravention of Section 33 by the petitioner was abundantly clear by the evidence adduced before the learned Court below. 10. In reply to para 10 it is denied that Issue No. 1 which has been framed by the learned Court below was the main issue, as a matter of fact the main issue was the illegal termination of service of replying respondent which was in contravention of Section 33 of the Act." 5. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing on either side in this case. The submission of the learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent worker in this connection cannot be countenanced for more than one reason, namely, that if the 3rd respondent worker wants to challenge the statement made by the Labour Court in paragraph 6 to the extent that the 3rd respondent worker did not press for Issue No. 1, it is for the 3rd respondent to have approached that Labour Court itself to have the error, if any, rectified and it is not permissible for him to challenge the same in this proceeding. Even that apart, a cursory reading of paragraphs 9 and 10 of the reply also would show that the 3rd respondent worker could not and has not also questioned the veracity of the said statement made in paragraph 6 of the award that the worker has not pressed Issue No. 1, before him. Even that apart, a cursory reading of paragraphs 9 and 10 of the reply also would show that the 3rd respondent worker could not and has not also questioned the veracity of the said statement made in paragraph 6 of the award that the worker has not pressed Issue No. 1, before him. Instead the attempt made even at this stage, in the reply to contend that Issue No. 1 was not the main Issue exposes the hollowness of the claim on behalf of the 3rd respondent worker now taken contrary to the specific statement recorded in paragraph 6 of the order. Therefore, it requires for us to proceed in the matter only on the supposition that the 3rd respondent worker has given up Issue No. 1 and has not pressed the same before the Labour Court. 6. If the 3rd respondent worker has not pressed Issue No. 1 before the Labour Court, it becomes essential for us to consider whether the Labour Court was right in pursuing an enquiry into the legality and justification or otherwise of the termination of the 3rd respondent worker to record a finding in his favour, ultimately. Though the worker whose reply is filed in this Court also would contend in paragraph 11 that the main controversy was that the worker had been terminated from service without any enquiry and without seeking the permission of the authority. The question as to whether the permission need be obtained or ought to have been obtained in this case would have lost its significance with the worker not pressing Issue No. 1 before the Labour Court. If that be the position, the legality and the propriety of the order of termination, irrespective of the gravity of the other infirmities, if any, which such order of termination may suffer, could be challenged only by an appropriate Reference being sought for and in a Reference to be made for such purpose in accordance with law and in an application filed under Section 33-A of the Act, there can be no such adjudication treating such application as a Reference relating to the non-employment or illegal termination or otherwise of the worker, as long as the Labour Court has not found specifically that the conditions laid down in Section 33-A have been satisfied. The condition precedent for the Labour Court/Tribunal to go into the correctness, legality, propriety or justification of the order of termination is a finding by it that there has been a violation of Section 33. So far as the case on hand is concerned inasmuch as not only the 3rd respondent worker has not pressed the side Issue and avoided a proof of the same before the Labour Court but the Labour Court has also not found specifically any such violation of Section 33, it was not open to the Labour Court to take up the Issue relating to the alleged illegality of the order of termination unless the matter relating to the legality and propriety or justification or otherwise of the order of termination was otherwise properly before it on a Reference under Section 10. Consequently, on this only ground that the Labour Court could not have in this application gone into the merits of the order of termination, the writ petition is allowed. The award of the Labour Court shall stand hear by quashed. 7. At the same time, it is made clear that this shall not stand in the way of the 3rd respondent invoking the remedy to seek for a Reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, particularly, even at this stage when he could not be found fault with for the lapse of time, which intervened. As and when the 3rd respondent worker approaches the competent authorities under the Industrial Disputes Act seeking for such reference, they shall expeditiously process the same and take appropriate action in this regard and even the Labour Court or the Tribunal to which a Reference is so made shall consider the question of giving it an expeditious disposal in the teeth of the lapse of time, by the parties fighting in this proceeding. Both the Government as well as the Labour Court or the forum must keep it into consideration that while allowing this writ petition, we have not chosen to express any opinion on the merits of the contentions relating to the order of dismissal/ termination. The amount, if any, deposited under the interim order of this Court by the petitioner-management will be refunded with any interest accrued thereon. CMP No. 1112/98: In view of the disposal of the writ petition, this application is also disposed of and the interim order is vacated. Petition allowed.