ORDER N.N. Tiwari, J. 1. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the award dated 30.8.2006 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. I, Dhanbad whereby the award has been made holding the action of the Management of Telecom Department in not allowing the workman Satish Deo Ram to get him back in the employment, not proper and justified and directing the Management to reinstate him without back wages. The petitioner has challenged the said award mainly on the grounds that the award is not based on proper appreciation of evidence on record, the stand of the Management has not been discussed and the said reference case was barred by the principles of res judicata. It has been stated that though the Management has taken a clear stand that the concerned workman had abandoned the work and had stopped coming and there was no retrenchment by the Management, the said aspect has not been considered by the learned Tribunal. Learned Tribunal has also not considered other materials on record. The concerned workman had earlier filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench (as then was) being CWJC No. 3423/94(R) (An-nexure-1) and his claim was turned down and the writ petition was dismissed. The concerned workman thereafter is estopped from challenging the action of the Management and any further proceeding to that regard is barred by the principles of res Judicata. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials placed on record. On perusal of the impugned award, I find that the case of the Management has been thoroughly discussed. Learned Tribunal has considered the stand taken by the Management. Learned Tribunal has also discussed the evidences adduced by the parties. In view thereof, I find no substance in the submission of learned Counsel that the case of the Management has not been considered and the evidences and materials have not been discussed. I have also perused the order passed in CWJC No. 3423/94(R). In the said writ petition the petitioner has raised the grievance that despite work being taken by him for two years in the Office of Telecommunication Department, his service was dispensed with without assigning any reason. The said writ petition was dismissed for not showing any appointment letter before the Court. It was held as follows: . In the said writ petition the petitioner has raised the grievance that despite work being taken by him for two years in the Office of Telecommunication Department, his service was dispensed with without assigning any reason. The said writ petition was dismissed for not showing any appointment letter before the Court. It was held as follows: . In my opinion, in the absence of any appointment letter of the petitioner, it is not possible to grant any relief to the petitioner in the present writ application. . 3. With the said observation, the writ petition was dismissed. On perusal of the terms of reference, I find that the appropriate Government has referred the following disputes for adjudication: . Whether the action of the employers in relation to the Department of Telecom, Post and Telegraph Electrical Division, Ranchi in not allowing the workman, Sh. Satish Deo Ram, to get him back in the employment was proper and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled? . 4. Before the parties appeared before the Tribunal and filed their respective written statements. Evidences were adduced by them. The Management had examined one Bijayananda Mahato, MW 1, who has stated that at the relevant time one Mr. R.K. Saha was the Assistant Engineer, but the said Sri Saha was not examined. On the other hand, he has granted a certificate of satisfactory service to the concerned workman which was marked as Ext. W/1. The Management did not produce any attendance register to falsify the claim of the concerned workman. The stand taken by the respective parties, the evidences and the circumstances have been duly considered by the learned Presiding Officer. C.G.I.T. and after due discussion and consideration, he has come to the finding that the action of the employer in relation to the Department of Telecom, Post and Telegraph Electrical Division, Ranchi in not allowing the workman Shri Satish Deo Ram to get him back in the employment is not proper and justified. It has been directed that the Management must reinstate him with back wages. The said issue before the learned Tribunal was not earlier decided by any Court. In the earlier writ petition this Court had also not decided the said issue. I find no substance in the second submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner as well that the award is barred by the principles of res Judicata. The said issue before the learned Tribunal was not earlier decided by any Court. In the earlier writ petition this Court had also not decided the said issue. I find no substance in the second submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner as well that the award is barred by the principles of res Judicata. 5. It has been submitted that there was delay in raising the dispute by the concerned workman, but the said point has not been decided. Learned counsel submitted that the award on that ground alone is bad. So far as the delay is concerned, there is no period of limitation for raising any dispute. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the claim of the petitioner is stale. The concerned workman had raised dispute before the appropriate authority much earlier. I, therefore, find no substance in the said ground too. There being no merit, this writ petition is dismissed.