ORDER: The General Insurance Employees, Association (South Zone), aggrieved by the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Madras dated 30.11.1993 made in I.D. No.39 of 1984 has filed the above writ petition to quash the same and prays consequential direction to the second respondent- management to categorise T.S. Santhanam, as an officer with retrospective effect and other monetary benefits. 2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder: T.S. Santhanam, a member of the petitioner Association was employed by the Madras Motor General Insurance Company Limited in 1961 as Junior Assistant at their Madras office. Subsequently, he was promoted and made as a Senior Assistant. During 1972, the business of General Insurance was nationalised by the General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 and the said company was also nationalised. Subsequent to the nationalisation, the unit in which T.S. Santhanam was working came to be attached to the second respondent, which is one of the subsidiary Companies formed under the General Insurance Corporation. By virtue of powers conferred under Sec.16 of the Act, the Central Government framed a scheme known as General Insurance (Rationalisation and Revision of Pay Scales and other Conditions of Service of Supervisory, Clerical and Subordinate Staff) Scheme, 1974. Another scheme was also framed in 1975. Though Santhanam was appointed as Senior Assistant, he was entrusted with the duties and responsibilities of an Officer by the erstwhile Insurer even before nationali-sation. 3. After referring various duties and responsibilities performed by Santhanam, it is stated that the Categorisation Committee constituted by the second respondent, without considering the same, gave an order dated 23.9.1974 and categorised him only as a Senior Assistant which designation he has already held. Against the said order, he preferred an appeal to the Chairman-cum- Managing Director on 20.11.1975 and the same was rejected. He also preferred an appeal to the Board of Directors dated 21.1.1977, but he did not get any reply for the said memorial. In such a circumstances, having no other remedy, the petitioner Association took up his cause and raised an industrial dispute before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Central). The second respondent questioned the jurisdiction of the authorities constituted under the Industrial Disputed Act. After failure report, the Government of India refused to refer the dispute for adjudication. In such a circumstances, having no other remedy, the petitioner Association took up his cause and raised an industrial dispute before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Central). The second respondent questioned the jurisdiction of the authorities constituted under the Industrial Disputed Act. After failure report, the Government of India refused to refer the dispute for adjudication. Subsequently, the Government of India in their order dated 5.5.1984 referred the dispute for adjudication, which resulted in I.D. No.39 of 1984 before the first respondent- Industrial Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned award dated 30.11.1993 came to the conclusion that the said workman was not entitled for any relief and also found that the categorisation was proper. The Tribunal has also concluded that the reference was not maintainable though the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act are applicable to the Corporation. Against the said award the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 4. Heard, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the second respondent. 5. Before considering the impugned award of the Tribunal, it is useful to refer the reference made by the Government of India for adjudication: "Whether the action of the Management of United India Insurance Company Limited, Madras in categorising Shri T.S. Santhanam, as Special Assistant, is fair, just and legal? If not, to what relief is the workman concerned entitled?" 6. Before the Tribunal, the workman- T.S. Santhanam himself got examined as W.W.1 and also produced and marked Exs.W-1 to W-6 in support of his claim. On the side of the management, their officer, one Yalla Sekar was examined as M.W.1 and also marked Exs.M-1 to M-10 in support of their defence. After considering the case of both parties, the tribunal framed the following issues for consideration: "(1) Whether the petitioner Thiru T.S. Santhanam was performing the duties of an Officer and ought to have been categorised as such? (2) Whether the categorisation of the petitioner as Senior Assistant is not fair and just? (3) Whether the reference is invalid without a notice to the respondent and without hearing the respondent? (4) Whether the petitioner is not entitled to any relief under the Industrial Disputes Act?" 7. Among the other issues raised, first I shall consider the answer given by the Tribunal with reference to issue No.3, namely, whether the reference is invalid without a notice to the respondent and without hearing the respondent. (4) Whether the petitioner is not entitled to any relief under the Industrial Disputes Act?" 7. Among the other issues raised, first I shall consider the answer given by the Tribunal with reference to issue No.3, namely, whether the reference is invalid without a notice to the respondent and without hearing the respondent. On the side of the management it is contended before the Tribunal that since once the Government had refused to refer the matter to the Tribunal and later on the same has been referred to the Tribunal for adjudication, inasmuch as no notice was given to them and they were not heard before making reference, the said reference is bad. By relying on a Full Bench decision of this Court in a case of S.Muthukrishnan v. Administrative Manager, (1980)1 L.L.J. 215 , the Tribunal accepted the contention raised by the respondent- management and found that the Government must not only issue notice to the concerned parties, but also hear them before deciding to refer it for adjudication and if it fails to do so, there is a violation of principle of natural justice. Ultimately, the Tribunal has held that in view of the said infirmity the reference is not maintainable. 8. Mr.K. Chandru, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner by relying on a decision of the Supreme Court in a case of Sultan Singh v. State of Haryana and another, (1996)1 L.L.J. 879 would contends that the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal for want of notice to the management at the hands of the Government cannot be sustained. The very same question was considered by the Supreme Court in the above referred decision and after referring Secs.10(1) and 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, their Lordships have held, "4. A conjoint reading, therefore, would yield to the conclusion that on making an application for reference, it would be open to the State Government to form an opinion whether industrial dispute exists or apprehended and then either to make a reference to the appropriate authorities or refuse to make the reference. Only on rejection thereof the order needs to be communicated to the applicant. Nonetheless the order is only an administrative order and not a quasi-judicial order. When it rejects, it records reasons as indicated in Sub-sec.(5) of Sec.12 of the Act. Only on rejection thereof the order needs to be communicated to the applicant. Nonetheless the order is only an administrative order and not a quasi-judicial order. When it rejects, it records reasons as indicated in Sub-sec.(5) of Sec.12 of the Act. The appropriate Government is entitled to go into the question whether an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended. It would be only a subjective satisfaction on the basis of the material on record. Being an administrative order no lis is involved. Thereby there is no need to issue any notice to the employer nor to hear the employer before making a reference or refusing to make a reference. Sub-sec.(5) of Sec.12 of Act does not enjoin the appropriate Government to record reasons for making reference under Sec.10(1). It enjoins to record reasons only when it refuses to make a reference. 5. The need for hearing is obviated, if it is considered on second occasion as even then if it makes reference, it does not cease to be an administrative order, and so is not incumbent upon the State Government to record reasons therein. Therefore, it is not necessary to issue notice to the employer nor to consider his objections nor to hear him before making a reference." In view of the legal position enunciated by the Supreme Court, it is clear that it is not necessary to issue notice to the employer nor consider their objection nor to hear them before making reference by the competent Government. This legal position has not been seriously disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent- management. By applying the said principle, the contrary conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal to issue No.3 is set aside. 9. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner after taking me through the discussion of the Tribunal, particularly with reference to the finding regarding categorisation of the petitioner as Senior Assistant would state that the conclusion of the Tribunal cannot be sustained, since it had concentrated only on the other issues, namely, maintainability of the reference etc., accordingly he prays for reconsideration of the matter by the Tribunal, on merits. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent- management, by drawing my attention to the discussion of the Tribunal, particularly in para 10, would contend that in view of the discussion and the ultimate decision taken by the Tribunal, irrespective of the conclusion on the other issues, there is no ground for remitting the matter to the Tribunal for deciding the issue once again. 10. No doubt, regarding the categorisation of the petitioner as Senior Assistant, with regard to his claim as stated earlier, T.S. Santhanam himself got examined as W.W.1 and also produced certain documents which have been marked as Exs.W.-1 to W-6. Likewise, on the side of the management, apart from the evidence of M.W.1, they also produced and marked various orders and communications pertaining to T.S. Santhanam as Exs.M-1 to M-10. In the light of the submissions made and also on the materials placed, I have carefully perused the discussion and the ultimate conclusion of the Tribunal. As rightly argued on the side of the petitioner, the Tribunal concentrated mainly on the other issues. I am also satisfied that though it had discussed the merits of the claim made by the petitioner, serious exercise has not been done by the Tribunal. In this regard, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in a case of Workmen v. Manager, Oriental Fire and General Limited, 2001 S.C.C. (L. & S.) 791. After considering the rival contentions regarding the scope of categorisation under different schemes with reference to different class of workman, their Lordships have held, “3. The scope of categorisation under different schemes will be with reference to different classes of workmen. Whether any particular workman has to be categorised in one category or another or categorisation of such workman in one group or another or non-categorisation of such workman in one group or another gives rise to a dispute for reference and that was exactly the dispute before the Tribunal. That dispute has to be resolved with reference to the principles stated in the scheme and apply the scheme with reference to each one of the workmen and find out whether the categorisation of that workman is correct or not. That dispute has to be resolved with reference to the principles stated in the scheme and apply the scheme with reference to each one of the workmen and find out whether the categorisation of that workman is correct or not. That exercise has not been done by the Tribunal, but it has simply gone on to proceed that placing of one or the other workman in one category or another is itself a part of the scheme and, therefore, the Tribunal cannot examine the same. This approach of the Tribunal is not justified at all. Therefore, we set aside the awards in each of these cases and remit the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law and in the light of this order.” By applying the said principle and in view of the fact that the Tribunal has not gone into the matter in detail, I am of the view that the matter has to be remitted to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. 11. In the light of what is stated above, the impugned award of the Tribunal dated 30.11.1993 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the first respondent for fresh disposal. The Tribunal is directed to restore I.D. No.39 of 1984 on its file and dispose of the same afresh, after affording an opportunity to both parties if needed, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed to the extent mentioned above. No costs.