JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J.—This petition is directed against the award dated 30th November, 1994 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla in Reference No. 14 of 1990. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this case are that an industrial dispute was raised by the Himachal Road Transport Corporation B-Grade Clerks Union, Shimla. This was against the amalgamation of the two cadre of clerks i.e. A-Grade and B-Grade in the year 1986 retrospectively w.e.f. 1st January, 1979. While ordering amalgamation, clerks belonging to A-Grade were kept enblock above those who were in B-Grade. 3. Another fact that needs to be noted here is, that prior to 1.1.1978 there were two categories of clerks on the establishment of Himachal Road Transport Corporation A-Grade and B-Grade, A-Grade clerks pay scale was of Rs. 110-250 and the other category was in the pay-scale of Rs. 110-200. As per relevant Recruitment and Promotion Rules, B-Grade Clerks were eligible for being considered for promotion to A-Grade clerks. 4. In the year 1980, revision of pay scales was ordered retrospectively w.e.f. 1.1.1978. As per these revised pay scales they were brought at par not only in the matter of time scale of Rs. 400-600, but also in respect of senior scale of Rs. 510-800 which was to be allowed after completion of three years of service. 5. In this background, amalgamation of both these categories of clerks was ordered in the year 1986 as noted above. Since the matter could not be resolved amicably, an industrial dispute was raised by the respondent Union. Department of Labour in the Government of Himachal Pradesh made reference to the Labour Court, under Section 12(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In this background, amalgamation of both these categories of clerks was ordered in the year 1986 as noted above. Since the matter could not be resolved amicably, an industrial dispute was raised by the respondent Union. Department of Labour in the Government of Himachal Pradesh made reference to the Labour Court, under Section 12(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Terms of reference were as under— "Government of Himachal Pradesh Department of Labour No. 8-1/90/Shram Dated Shimla-2, the 24/2/90 Notification Whereas it appears to the Governor, Himachal Pradesh, that there is an industrial dispute between Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation B-Grade Clerks category Union and the management of Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh; And whereas after considering the report submitted by the Conciliation Officer under Section 12(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Governor, Himachal\ Pradesh is satisfied that the matter may be referred to the Labour Court, Himachal Pradesh; Now, therefore, the Governor, Himachal Pradesh in exercise of the powers vested in his under Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (Act No. 14 of 1947) hereby refer this case to the Labour Court, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, constituted under Section 7 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for adjudication as under— 1. Whether the demand of the H.R.T.C., B-Grade clerks category Union for separate cadre for B-Grade clerks is justified? If so, to what relief and service benefits the aggrieved persons are entitled?" 2. "Whether the claim of the Union for the separate seniority list for B-Grade clerks in the H.R.T.C. is justified and in order? If yes, to what relief and service benefits the aggrieved persons are entitled?" 3. Whether the demand of the Union for separate recruitment and promotion Rules to B-Grade clerks in the HRTC is genuine and justified? If so, to what relief and service benefits the aggrieved persons are entitled?" By Order Commissioner-cum-Secretary (Labour) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh." A perusal of the reference order clearly shows that Government had referred the matter to the Labour Court for adjudication on the three questions detailed in the above Notification. 6. At the time of hearing of this case, learned Counsel for the parties were not" at variance that so far first part of the three questions referred is concerned, findings have been recorded against the workmen members of respondent-Union. 7. 6. At the time of hearing of this case, learned Counsel for the parties were not" at variance that so far first part of the three questions referred is concerned, findings have been recorded against the workmen members of respondent-Union. 7. On the basis of the reference of disputes, question of answering second part of all these 3 questions would only arise if the first part had been answered in the affirmative in favour of the respondent. Admittedly this is not the situation. As such, there is no question of second part thereof having been answered. As in my considered view, second part of all the three questions became redundant. More particularly, when respondents have not challenged the findings on first part of these three questions. 8. Faced with the situation, Mr. Kashyap, learned Counsel for respondent-Union, submitted that no prejudice is going to be caused to the petitioner-Corporation in case relief granted under F. R. 22-C of the Fundamental Rules is upheld by dismissing this writ petition. As this according to Mr. Kashyap is service benefit to which the members of respondent-Union are legitimately entitled to. This argument prima-facie appears to quite attractive. However, when it is examined in the light of reference order as well as findings recorded on first part of all the three questions (supra), then it is clear that it has been raised simply to be rejected. Question of the grant of service benefits under all the three questions contained in the reference would only arise when the first part of such points was answered in favour of the respondent. Admittedly that is not the situation. As such, this writ petition is being disposed of on this short ground alone without adverting to the merits of the writ petition on behalf of the petitioner. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this writ petition deserves to be allowed and it is ordered accordingly. As a consequence of it award passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Himachal Pradesh in Reference No. 14 of 1990 on 30th November, 1994, in case titled H.R.T.C. B-Grade Clerks Union, Shimla v. The Management of Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Shimla, is hereby quashed and set-aside leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 10. As a consequence of it award passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Himachal Pradesh in Reference No. 14 of 1990 on 30th November, 1994, in case titled H.R.T.C. B-Grade Clerks Union, Shimla v. The Management of Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Shimla, is hereby quashed and set-aside leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 10. In view of the fact of this writ petition having been allowed, it is held that petitioner will be free to recover the excess amount if any paid, from the salary of the clerks in instalments in view of the orders passed by this Court on 4th September, 1996 in CMP No. 3496 of 1995.