Judgment Amareshwar Sahay,J: Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner workman has challenged the impugned Award dated 19.2.2002 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur in Reference Case no. 1 of 1988, whereby though it was held by the Labour Court that the termination of the workman for the misconduct of unauthorized absence was invalid, ineffective, inoperative and too harsh, but at the same time he has also held that since the sponsoring union had no representative capacity and following of substantial number of workmen to espouse their cause and, therefore, the present references was not maintainable and the workman was not entitled to any relief claimed by him. 3. It appears that appropriate Government referred the dispute in exercise of power under section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act to adjudicate, as to whether termination of service of Shri Balmiki Dubey, workman of M/s Indian Steel & Wire Products Ltd. , Jamshedpur is proper and justified ? If not, what relief he will be entitled to? 4. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that at one hand the Presiding Officer, Labour Court has held that the termination of the workman for the misconduct of unauthorized absence is invalid, ineffective, inoperative and too harsh, but on the other hand he has held that the reference was not maintainable and the workman was not entitled to any relief claimed by him on the ground that the sponsoring union had no representative capacity and following of substantial number of workmen to espouse their cause. Mr. Dwivedi further submitted that once reference was made by the appropriate Government in exercise of power under section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act then Labour Court cannot travel beyond the terms of the reference and he cannot question the validity of the reference. He further submitted that once reference was referred for adjudication then it is immaterial as to whether the dispute was referred at the instance of the recognized union or unrecognized union. In support of his submission he relied on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. Versus State of Bihar & others, reported in 2002(3) J.C.R. 52 (Jhr). 5. In support of his submission he relied on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. Versus State of Bihar & others, reported in 2002(3) J.C.R. 52 (Jhr). 5. In paragraph 8 of this judgment, the Division Bench of this Court has held that the apprehension of the industrial dispute is condition precedent for making a reference. Once a serious industrial dispute is referred to the Labour Court or Tribunal for adjudication, then it becomes secondary whether the dispute was referred at the instance of valid recognized union and for that reason the Labour Court has been debarred from examining the validity of the reference. 6. Therefore, it appears that the present case is covered by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court stated above. 7. Accordingly, without going into any other point, this writ petition is allowed on this short point and that part of the Award by which the Labour Court has held that the reference is not maintainable and the workman is not entitled to any relief claimed by him, is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur, to pass a fresh Award in accordance with law after hearing the parties on the material and evidence already on record. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions this writ application stands disposed of.