JUDGMENT P. K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, CJ. — The petitioners in O.J.C. No. 1213 of 2000 on the file of this Court are the appellants in this Letters Patent Appeal. O. J. C. No. 1213 of 2000 was filed by the appellants seeking to quash the order of the Industrial Tribunal, Orissa, Bhubaneswar in I.D.Case No. 65 of 1998 (Central) rejecting an application filed by the appellants, the Management to call for the file of the Government of India relating to the reference of the dispute made to the Tribunal. Earlier, there was an attempt at conciliation and on the failure report of the Conciliation Officer, the reference was made by the Central Government. The dispute related to certain workers who, according to the Management, were not its employees, but who, according to the Union, were employees of the Management. The Union had appar¬ently made a claim on behalf of 190 persons claiming them to be workmen. In his failure report under Sec. 12 (4) of the Industri¬al Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), the Conciliation Officer had referred to in particular to the workmen engaged in CHP, canteen, Rest House and Store. According to the management, the order of reference made by the Government of India contained a schedule in the following words : “Whether the demand of the Union for regularisation of contract labour engaged in permanent and perennial nature of work as per list is justified ? If so, what relief the workmen con¬cerned are entitled to ?” But, no list accompanied that order as indicated therein with the result that the Management was in the dark as to the persons whose claims were involved in the reference. Going by the report under Sec. 12 (4) of the Act, the persons whose claims were to be adjudicated upon would be 92. The case of the Management is that jurisdiction is vested in the Tribunal only to decide the claims of the persons in the list and not of any other and hence for properly answering the reference the list referred to in the order making the reference was absolutely necessary. According to the Union, the claim raised by them before the Conciliation Officer included the claims of 190 persons as included in the list signed by the Union and the reference relates to the claims of the said persons included in the list of the Union. According to the Union, the claim raised by them before the Conciliation Officer included the claims of 190 persons as included in the list signed by the Union and the reference relates to the claims of the said persons included in the list of the Union. It is the case of the Management that since no list was communicated to the Management as indicated in the order making the reference and since the report of the Conciliation Officer indicates the workmen whose claims required to be considered, the claim that the reference relates to 190 workmen cannot be sustained since the workmen involved in the areas referred to in the report of the Conciliation Officer were only 92. 2. In the context of this dispute, the Management made applications before the Industrial Tribunal to call for the relevant files from the Conciliation Officer and from the Central Government so as to ascertain precisely the number of workmen involved in the reference made by the Central Government. The Tribunal called for the file from the Conciliation Officer and that file only contained a copy of the list submitted by the Union containing the names of 190 persons. In that context, the Management requested the Tribunal to call for the concerned file from the Central Government so that the scope of the reference could be determined with precision with reference to the list referred to in the schedule to the order making the reference. The workmen apparently did not file any objection to this peti¬tion, but were urging that answer to the reference must be expe¬dited and the Management was trying to protract the proceeding and that should not be permitted. On 27.12.1999, the Tribunal passed an order even before the representative of the workmen could reach the Tribunal, rejecting the request of the Management to call for the records from the referring Government pertaining to the reference and observed that the reference must be deemed to relate to the 190 workmen included in the list submitted by the Union before the Conciliation Officer. 3. Rejection of that petition to call for the relevant file from the Central Government was challenged by the Management in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge perused the file of the Conciliation Officer. 3. Rejection of that petition to call for the relevant file from the Central Government was challenged by the Management in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge perused the file of the Conciliation Officer. He took the view that there was no reason to interfere with the order of the Industrial Tribunal and held that in the circumstances the report made by the Conciliation Officer must be taken to be related to all the persons included in the list supplied by the Union with 190 names. Thus, the writ petition was dismissed, but with the observation that at the time of adjudication of the dispute, the Management shall have the opportunity to raise the dispute that the persons mentioned in the list available in the file of the Conciliation Officer are not its workmen but are only contract labourers. Feeling aggrieved, the Management has come up with this appeal. 4. In view of the fact that the reference made by the Central Government remains to be answered, we do not think it proper or necessary to deal elaborately with the various conten¬tions raised before us by counsel on either side. It is more or less clear that even though the copy of the order of the Central Government communicated to the Management on the question re¬ferred to the Industrial Tribunal for decision refers to an attached list, no such list actually accompanied that order with the result that it was not communicated to the Management as to who are the persons whose claims are to be considered by the Industrial Tribunal. It is seen that the persons included in the list submitted by the Union were working in different Sections. Therefore, the actual number was of relevance especially in the context of some observations made by the Conciliation Officer in his failure report specifying persons working in certain particu¬lar areas. The file of the Conciliation Officer did not contain a list prepared by that officer. It only contained a list submitted by the Union. The persons were employed in different sections. The claims of the persons employed in each Section may have to be decided depending on the available fact situation regarding the nature of their employment. The file of the Conciliation Officer did not contain a list prepared by that officer. It only contained a list submitted by the Union. The persons were employed in different sections. The claims of the persons employed in each Section may have to be decided depending on the available fact situation regarding the nature of their employment. A list of persons working in each section, whose claims were referred, was necessary since it was necessary to have authentic information about the number of workmen whose claims are the subject matter of reference and adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal. In that context, and in the circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the Man¬agement was justified in requesting the Tribunal to call for the concerned file from the Central Government so that the scope of the reference can be ascertained with certainty with reference to the list of persons attached to or intended to be attached to the order of reference. In any event, we do not think that the Indus¬trial Tribunal was justified in shutting out authentic informa¬tion on that score by refusing to call for the concerned file from the Central Government. It is interesting to note that the petition filed by the Management in that behalf was rejected by the Industrial Tribunal even before ascertaining the reaction of the Union and even before the representative Union arrived on the scene. The Industrial Tribunal, it appears to us, has acted in unnecessary haste in adopting such a course. After all, it would have been helpful for every one concerned including the Tribunal to know who exactly are the persons whose claims are referred to the Tribunal for a decision. To leave this question vague or unclear or even debatable, does not appear to be proper. 5. The learned Single Judge in our view has not approached the question in the proper perspective when he declined to inter¬fere with the order of the Industrial Tribunal. After all, it is not only necessary that an industrial dispute referred to a Tribunal should be decided with maximum expedition but that it should also be decided justly, properly and precisely. In that view of the matter, the learned Single Judge ought to have inter¬fered with the order of the Tribunal in the circumstances obtain¬ing in the case. After all, it is not only necessary that an industrial dispute referred to a Tribunal should be decided with maximum expedition but that it should also be decided justly, properly and precisely. In that view of the matter, the learned Single Judge ought to have inter¬fered with the order of the Tribunal in the circumstances obtain¬ing in the case. In our view, the Tribunal had failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by law in not calling for the concerned file from the Central Government. 6. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the decision of the learned Single Judge and the order of the Indus¬trial Tribunal declining to allow the application of the Manage¬ment to call for the concerned file from the Central Government, and allow that application. The Tribunal will urgently call for the concerned file from the Central Government and then proceed to answer the reference expeditiously in accordance with law and strictly on merits. Counsel for the Union complained that the Management was prolonging the resolution of the dispute and this was not proper. Counsel for the Management has undertaken before us that the Management will co-operate in the adjudication and will ensure that nothing is done by it to prolong the dispute. We record that submission. The Tribunal is directed to expedite the adjudication. We direct the parties to suffer their respective costs. Appeal allowed.