Order This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of' the learned Single Judge who had been pleased to allow the writ petition partly by setting aside the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal in favour of the appellants-workmen to the extent that they would be entitled for payment of compensation for the period during which the respondent-factory was under closure. 2. It is relevant to recollect that the specific term of reference which was referred to the Tribunal for adjudication is as follows:- "Whether the workmen employed by M/s. Bajrang Mica Company Private Ltd., Jamdharia, P.O. Chas, District Bokaro are entitled to get the pay and other benefits for the period -of closure from 19.11.1990? If not, what relief they are entitled to?" 3. After adjudication of the aforesaid reference, the Tribunal was pleased to hold that the appellants-workmen would be entitled to wages for the period during which factory was under closure but simultaneously was also pleased to hold that the closure was bad in the eye of law. However, there was no-positive direction to restart the factory. 4. The respondent-management assailed the award by the Industrial Tribunal before the learned Single Judge by filing a writ petition and it was contended before the learned Single Judge that although compensation for the period of closure could be held payable by the respondent management to the appellants-workmen, yet the finding of the Tribunal was perverse, in so far as the finding of fact recorded in regard to the closure was bad in the eye of law. The learned Single Judge, therefore, allowed the writ petition partly and set aside the finding in regard to the closure meaning thereby that the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal holding therein that the closure was bad in the eye of law, was quashed and set aside. However, the learned Single Judge was further pleased to hold that the appellants-workmen would be entitled to compensation for the period during which they had discharged duty. Thus, the writ petition was partly allowed in favour of the respondent-management against which this appeal had been preferred by the appellants-workmen. 5. However, the learned Single Judge was further pleased to hold that the appellants-workmen would be entitled to compensation for the period during which they had discharged duty. Thus, the writ petition was partly allowed in favour of the respondent-management against which this appeal had been preferred by the appellants-workmen. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants workmen strenuously emphasized that the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal was fit to be upheld and the learned Single Judge was in error in setting aside the same by holding that the closure of the industry was justified. 6. We, however, do not feel persuaded to accept this contention for the specific term of reference quoted hereinbefore clearly indicates that the reference was framed and referred to the Tribunal for adjudication of the question only to the extent whether compensation would be paid to the appellants-workmen for the period during which they had discharged duty although the factory was under closure. The reference, however, was also to the effect as to what other relief or reliefs the workmen could claim. But under this Clause, the specific question as to whether closure of the factory was justified or not was never the term of reference before the Tribunal and the Tribunal thus, while holding that the appellants-workmen were entitled to compensation for the period during which they had discharged duty, exceeded its jurisdiction by holding that the closure was bad in the eye of law. Besides this, the Tribunal itself has not granted any relief to the appellants-workmen to the extent that it would be entitled to assert for re-opening of the industry. Thus, we fully concur with the view of the learned Single Judge in so far as the finding of fact in regard to the closure of the industry is concerned, as determination of the same was clearly beyond the term of reference. 7. The learned Single Judge has already allowed the claim of compensation wages to the appellants-workmen for the period during which they had discharged their duty under closure period. Thus, we, find no reason for the appellants to assail the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge. 8. The appeal thus, has no sub stance. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed at the admission stage itself.