JUDGMENT : L. Mohapatra, J. - This writ application is directed against the award dated 2.2.1995 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Orissa, Bhubaneswar in I.D. Case No. 2 of 1993. 2. The workmen are the petitioners before this Court. The petitioners were engaged as Khalasis under the erstwhile Rural Engineering Organisation (re-named as Minor Irrigation Department) of Dhenkanal Division. The Petitioner No. 1 was engaged on 15.7.1962, Petitioner No. 2 on 1.2.1973, Petitioner No. 3 on 1.9.1972, Petitioner No. 4 on 2.9.1968 and Petitioner No. 5 on 1.2.1967. They were allowed to continue as NMR employees till the year 1984 when the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation issued a letter to the Executive Engineer or 22.3.1984 directing to retrench all work charged employees irregularly appointed after 1.11.1973 with effect from 1.4.1984. Even though the petitioners were engaged on 1.11.1973 all of them were retrenched by May, 1984. The petitioners 1 to 3 approached this Court in O.J.C. No. 1572 of 1984 and petitioners 4 and 5 approached in O.J.C. No. 1573 of 1984 praying for a direction to allow them to continue in service and regularise their services. While the writ applications were pending before this Court, State Administrative Tribunal was constituted and both the writ applications were transferred to the State Administrative Tribunal for adjudication. Both the applications were rejected vide order dated 2.1.1990. Thereafter the petitioners raised a dispute before the Opp. Party No. 4 and prayed for conciliation on the ground that they have been retrenched illegally and the provisions contained in Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act have not been complied with. Conciliation having failed, failure report was submitted before the appropriate Government and on consideration of failure report, the following reference was made to the Tribunal for adjudication. "Whether the retrenchment of Sarbasri Bhagaban Behera, Sarat Chandra Behera, Bansidhar Parida, Raghunath Garnaik and Dukhabandhu Rout by the management of Minor Irrigation Division, Dhenkanal by their order dated 30.4.1984 is legal and/or justified ? If not, what relief the workmen are entitled to ?" The Tribunal in the impugned award without answering the reference on merit referring to the order passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal held that the reference is barred by constructive res judicata and the appropriate Government could not have made any reference on the same issue. 3. If not, what relief the workmen are entitled to ?" The Tribunal in the impugned award without answering the reference on merit referring to the order passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal held that the reference is barred by constructive res judicata and the appropriate Government could not have made any reference on the same issue. 3. Shri Rath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners challenged the award on the ground that once reference is made u/s 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act to the Tribunal for adjudication, it has no other power except answering the reference on merits. According to Sri Rath, learned counsel for the petitioners, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hold that the reference is bared by constructive res judicata. It was also contended by Sri Rath that the matter for adjudication before the Orissa Administrative Tribunal was regularisation of services and question of legality or otherwise of retrenchment of the petitioners was not the subject matter of issue before the Orissa Administrative Tribunal. Learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submits that not only the question of regularisation but also legality of retrenchment from service was the question raised before the Orissa Administrative Tribunal and the Competent Court having decided the issue, there is nothing left to be decided by the Industrial Tribunal and therefore the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal is legal and justified. 4. Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 provides that where the appropriate Government is of opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, it may at any time, by order in writing refer the dispute to the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal, as the case may be. Sub-section (2-A) of Section 10 of the Act provides that an order referring an industrial dispute to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal shall specify the period within which such Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal shall submit its award on such dispute to the appropriate Government, Therefore, prima facie, there appears to be some force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that once reference is made to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication by the appropriate Government, the dispute has to be answered by way of an award. 5. 5. Question in issue is as to whether Industrial Tribunal can answer a reference even though a similar question is decided by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal or not came up for consideration in the case of Commissioner, Ongole Municipality v. Kunchala Sreenu and Ors., reported in 2000 LLJ 316. In the said case the workman filed an Original Application before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and the said Tribunal disposed of the Original Application with a direction to the Director of Municipality Administration to consider the case of the workman in accordance with Rules and the same was not considered. The workman approached Industrial Tribunal complaining violation of Section 25-F of the Act. The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the effect of regularisation or reinstatement by the Municipality, no doubt, results in bringing into force, the relationship of Master and Servant. From this point of view, this service matter is undoubtedly within the purview of the jurisdiction of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The other side of the coin is that in water works scheme, which includes purification of water and supply of water to the residents of the Municipality, is an industry and the persons who work in that Department are nevertheless, 'workmen' within the definition of Section 2(s) of the Act. A person who is both an employee for the purpose of Government Service and also a workman with reference to the industry is entitled to seek such remedy as is available to him. In the case of Himachal Pradesh Agro Industries Corporation v. Raj Kumar and Ors., reported in 2002 II LLJ 317 the High Court of Himachal Pradesh held that the Administrative Tribunal has no jurisdiction to enquire into the grievances in the matters covered by Industrial Disputes Act and if the services of the workmen are terminated without complying with Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, the proper remedy is to approach the Industrial Court. 6. In view of the above discussion and on consideration of the above, I am of the view that reference made by the appropriate Government to the Industrial Tribunal should have been considered on merits. Apart from the above, reference itself speaks about legality of the retrenchment of the petitioners from service, whereas the original application was for regularisation of service. In view of the above discussion and on consideration of the above, I am of the view that reference made by the appropriate Government to the Industrial Tribunal should have been considered on merits. Apart from the above, reference itself speaks about legality of the retrenchment of the petitioners from service, whereas the original application was for regularisation of service. At this stage it was contended by the learned counsel for the State that since the question of termination was also subject matter of consideration before the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, it cannot be said that the reference is with regard to retrenchment. In this connection, reference may be made to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of L. Robert D'souza Vs. Executive Engineer, Southern Railway and Another, Relying on the relevant provisions of Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Court held as follows : "If termination of service of a workman is brought about for any reason whatsoever, it would be retrenchment except if the case falls within any of the excepted categories, be, (i) termination by way of punishment inflicted pursuant to disciplinary action, (ii) voluntary retirement of the workman; (iii) retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf; (iv) or termination of the service on the ground of continued ill-health. Once the case does not fall in any of the excepted categories the termination of service even if it be according to automatic discharge from service under agreement would nonetheless be retrenchment within the meaning of expression in Section 2(oo). It must as a corollary follow that if the name of the workman is struck off the roll that itself would constitute retrenchment." Since the case of the petitioners does not come within any of the exceptions as mentioned in the section, termination, if any, has to be treated as retrenchment and therefore it is the Industrial Tribunal which has jurisdiction to decide the issue. 7. I, therefore, quash the impugned award in Annexure-10 and direct the Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar to decide the reference on merit by giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties. 7. I, therefore, quash the impugned award in Annexure-10 and direct the Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar to decide the reference on merit by giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties. The I.D. case being very old, the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal is directed to take steps for early disposal of the dispute preferably within a period of one year. If the petitioners appear before the Tribunal and file a petition for fixing a date of appearance of the opposite parties, the Tribunal may entertain the petition and pass necessary orders. The writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction.