JUDGMENT S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. This application has been preferred by the petitioner-Management of HEC Ltd. against the award dated 22nd August, 1994 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi in Reference Case No. 5/92, so far as it relates to observations and directions, as contained in Paragraph 32 of the award. 2. As the case can be disposed of on short point, it is not necessary to discuss all the facts, except the relevant one. 3. Admittedly, a reference was initially made at the instance of 3rd respondent, vide Notification dated 17th December, 1975 for adjudication of the following issues : "Whether not to give pay scale of Rs. 150-240/- and further promotions after re-orientation training to 14 workmen mentioned in the schedule A like other workmen is proper? If not what pay scale and promotion and from which date these workmen are entitled to? It was registered as Reference Case No. 20/75 and answered against the workmen. The workmen Nawal Kishore Singh and others thereafter moved Ranchi Bench of this Court in CWJC No. 436/79(R) against the award given on 20th December, 1978 wherein the Court upheld the award, vide judgment dated 10th October, 1985. Similar decision was given in CWJC No. 556 of 1979(R). in the case of Nawal Kishore Singh and others, as given vide judgment dated 5th May, 1987. 4. It appears that the 3rd respondent again moved for reference for somewhat similar issue, namely, "whether not to give pay scale of Rs. 150-240/- and further promotions after re- orientation training to 14 workmen mentioned in the schedule A like other workmen is proper? If not, what pay scale and promotion and from which date these workmen are entitled to?" 5. This time, it was registered as Reference Case No. 5/92 and was heard by learned Presiding Officer. Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi. The petitioner- Management appeared and opposed the reference on the ground of res judicata, earlier similar issue having decided upto High Court and the judgment having become final. 6. The Presiding Officer, vide impugned award dated 22nd August, 1994 in Reference Case No. 5/92 accepted that the reference is hit by the mischief of principles of res judicata and made the following observations : ".....Accordingly. I find and hold that the present reference is hit by the mischief of principles of resjudicata....." 7. 6. The Presiding Officer, vide impugned award dated 22nd August, 1994 in Reference Case No. 5/92 accepted that the reference is hit by the mischief of principles of res judicata and made the following observations : ".....Accordingly. I find and hold that the present reference is hit by the mischief of principles of resjudicata....." 7. Though the aforesaid finding given by the Tribunal that the reference is hit by the mischief of principles of res judicata, curiously, finding of fact and decision on merit given and by its award at Paragraph-32, a finding given in favour of workmen. 8. The counsel for the 3rd respondent, while tried to support the finding at Paragraph-32 of the award, accepted that the Presiding Officer had no jurisdiction to decide the issue after decision given that the reference itself was hit by the mischief of principles of res judicata. 9. For the reasons aforesaid, Paragraph-32 of the award dated 22nd August, 1994, passed in Reference Case No. 5/92, being illegal, the answer as given relating to Issue No. 3 is set aside. 10. The writ petition is allowed. There shall, however, be no order, as to costs. 11. Writ petition allowed.