ORDER Abhay M. Naik, J. 1. This writ petition has been preferred against the award dated 08.01.2007 under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ID Act) by the MP Industrial Tribunal, Indore in Reference Case No. 2/2006. 2. Relevant facts, which are not in dispute, are that the first party is a registered union in the name of Prantiya Rajya Parivahan Karmachari Sangh (Congress) (Respondent No. 1) whereas second Respondent-Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation is established under Section 3 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. There was a memo of settlement (Annexure P/4) dated 03.02.1988 in Form 'M' as per Section 43 of the MP Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the MPIR Act) and Rule 44 of the MP Industrial Relations Rules, 1961. Settlement was arrived at after conciliation proceedings between the Managing Director, MP State Road Transport Corporation and the Madhya Pradesh Transport Workers Federation. Relevant terms of the settlement are as under: (1) That it is agreed that the existing pay scales of the Corporation employees shall be revised in accordance with the pay scales of the State Government employees. An Annexure 'A' showing the existing scale of the Corporation and the corresponding scale on par with the Government employees is appended herewith. (2) That it is agreed that the dearness allowance shall also be payable to the corporation employees on par with the Government employees and that further revision of the dearness allowance as and when done for the Government employees shall also be made applicable for the corporation employees. 3. Pursuant to the said settlement, circular No. 21 dated 13.04.1999 was issued by the Corporation for grant of three installments of dearness allowance. The said circular is on record as Annexure P/11. Corporation did not give dearness allowance to its employees from 01.01.1998. The State Government has increased the dearness allowance of its employees as per circular dated 24.04.1998 (Annexure P/12). Dearness Allowance in respect of those employees has also been increased who continued to draw their salaries in the pay scales of the Fourth Pay Commission. These have been described as pre-revised pay scales. The State Government has increased the dearness allowance of its employees as per circular dated 24.04.1998 (Annexure P/12). Dearness Allowance in respect of those employees has also been increased who continued to draw their salaries in the pay scales of the Fourth Pay Commission. These have been described as pre-revised pay scales. Thereafter, the State Government has revised the dearness allowance payable to its employees several times as per Annexure P/13, but the benefit of increased dearness allowance from time to time has not been granted to the employees of the second party. 4. The State Government has accepted the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission for its employees. The Corporation has also granted 20% interim relief to its employees in anticipation of the implementation of the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission for its employees. That has been done by order dated 06.05.1998 (Annexure P/14). It is gainsaid that several other State owned Corporations have given the benefit of the pay scales recommended by the Fifth Pay Commission to their employees, but the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation did not extend the benefit of the pay scales recommended by the Fifth Pay Commission to its employees. 5. The State Government has taken an administrative decision in the year 2005 for winding up of the MP State Road Transport Corporation mainly on the ground that it was incurring huge and heavy losses. A large number of the employees of the Corporation have been given benefit of Voluntary Retirement Scheme of the year 2005. 6. In the aforesaid backdrop, the first party served a notice of change on the second party as per Section 31(2) of the MPIR Act on 19.11.1998 vide Annexure P/1. On failure of the conciliation proceedings, the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Indore in exercise of powers under Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the ID Act made a reference on the following dispute to the Industrial Tribunal, Indore: 7. It is pertinent to note that it is clearly mentioned in the order of reference that notice of change by first party was served as per Section 31(2) of the MPIR Act on 19.11.1998. It is pertinent to note that it is clearly mentioned in the order of reference that notice of change by first party was served as per Section 31(2) of the MPIR Act on 19.11.1998. MPIR Amendment Act, 2000 was enforced with effect from 17.05.2006 with the effect that MPIR Act is no longer applicable to the employees of the MP State Road Transport Corporation, in view of the notification dated 17.05.2006, issued under Sub-section (4) of Section 1 of this Act, and therefore, reference has been made under Section 10 of the ID Act. 8. MP Industrial Tribunal vide the impugned award Ex.D/5 answered the reference in the following manner: (i)The employees of the MP State Road Transport Corporation are entitled to the dearness allowance as per the "Memorandum of Settlement" dated 03.02.1998 (Annexure P/4) from 01.01.1998. In other words, they are entitled to the dearness allowance at par with the employees of the State Government increased from time to time after 01.01.1998 for "pre-revised pay scales" (Scales prevalent before the recommendations of Fifth Pay Commission were accepted for the employees of the State Government). The employees of the Corporation who have been given the benefit of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2005 would be entitled to the increased dearness allowance as per the "Memorandum of Settlement" dated 03.02.1988 (Annexure P/4) up to the time they were in service. The dearness allowance in terms of this Award shall be paid to the employees of the Corporation in four equal quarterly installments in one year. (ii) The employees of the Corporation are not entitled to the pay scales recommended by Fifty Pay Commission and they are also not entitled to any other relief. 9. Shri Girish Patwardhan, learned advocate for the Petitioner, Shri Shekhar Bhargava, learned senior advocate for Respondent No. 1 and Shri Vivek Patwa, learned Deputy Government Advocate made their submissions in support of their respective plea, which have been considered in the light of the material on record and the law governing the situation. 10. It has been contended on behalf of the Petitioner that the reference was neither proper nor competent, because the notice of change served by the first party on the second party was as per Section 31(2) of the MIIR Act. Provisions of MPIR Act have been made inapplicable in view of notification dated 17.05.2006 by virtue of MPIR Amendment Act, 2000. Provisions of MPIR Act have been made inapplicable in view of notification dated 17.05.2006 by virtue of MPIR Amendment Act, 2000. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, notice under Section 31(2) of the MPIR Act stood vitiated on account of the aforesaid amendment of the Act and fresh proceedings for the reference under Section 10 of the ID Act ought to have been initiated. Submission of the Petitioner's learned Counsel is having no force, firstly because the order of reference was made vide Ex.D/1 dated 2nd August, 2006 under Section 10 of the ID Act, in specific Section 10(1). Petitioner did not challenge it immediately but, instead participated in the reference proceedings before the MP Industrial Tribunal. Though objection is raised about absence of competence to make the reference on the said ground, no such objection was ever raised in the reply to the statement of claim, as revealed in Ex.D/4. This apart, the Petitioner was already made aware vide the order of reference that the same was being made under Section 10 of the ID Act. Petitioner did not choose to challenge it and, instead, contested the reference before the MP Industrial Tribunal on other grounds. This being so, it is not open for the Petitioner to challenge on this ground the outcome of the reference vide impugned award after passing of it. 11. In any case, appropriate Government is empowered under Section 10 of the ID Act, 1947 to refer the dispute if it so exists to Industrial Tribunal. Relevant provision contained in Section 10(1) of the ID Act, 1947 is reproduced below: 10. Reference of disputes to Boards, Courts or Tribunals. -(1) Where the appropriate Government is of opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, it may at any time, by order in writing (a) ..... (b) ..... (c) ..... Relevant provision contained in Section 10(1) of the ID Act, 1947 is reproduced below: 10. Reference of disputes to Boards, Courts or Tribunals. -(1) Where the appropriate Government is of opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, it may at any time, by order in writing (a) ..... (b) ..... (c) ..... (d) refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with, or relevant to, the dispute, whether it relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule or the Third Schedule, to a Tribunal for adjudication: Provided that where the dispute relates to any matter specified in the Third Schedule and is not likely to affect more than one hundred workmen, the appropriate Government may, if it so thinks fit, make the reference to a Labour Court under Clause (c): Provided further that where the dispute relates to a public utility service and a notice under Section 22 has been given, the appropriate Government shall, unless it considers that the notice has been frivolously or vexatiously given or that it would be inexpedient so to do, make a reference under this Sub-section notwithstanding that any other proceedings under this Act in respect of the dispute may have commenced: Provided also that where the dispute in the relation to which the Central Government is the appropriate Government, it shall be competent for the Government to refer the dispute to a Labour Court or an Industrial Tribunal, as the case may be, constituted by the State Government. Appropriate Government having formed an opinion about existence of industrial dispute has rightly made the reference under Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the ID Act, 1947. This being so, we reject the aforesaid objection/contention. 12. Further contention on behalf of the Petitioner is that the reference was made in respect of existing employees alone and the employees having sought voluntary retirement cannot be benefited by it. 13. This contention is also without any substance because the question referred was in two parts. Former part relates to the propriety of the grant of pay scales payable to the Government servants as per the Central Fifth Pay Commission with effect from 01.01.1996 to the existing employees, after the decision of winding up of the MP State Road Transport Corporation and 75 % of the employees having availed Voluntary Retirement Scheme. Former part relates to the propriety of the grant of pay scales payable to the Government servants as per the Central Fifth Pay Commission with effect from 01.01.1996 to the existing employees, after the decision of winding up of the MP State Road Transport Corporation and 75 % of the employees having availed Voluntary Retirement Scheme. This relates to the grant of pay scales as per Fifth Pay Commission to the existing employees with effect from 01.01.1996. Later part relates to propriety of dearness allowance to the employees of the Corporation with effect from 01.01.1998. Thus, it cannot be said that the reference was made in respect of existing employees alone and was not in respect of the employees who had sought retirement under Voluntary Retirement Scheme. Accordingly, it cannot be said that answer to the reference is beyond the question referred to the Industrial Tribunal. 14. Further contention on behalf of the Petitioner is that there did not exist a dispute within the meaning of Section 10 of the ID Act and that the reference in the absence of requisite ingredients under Section 10 of the ID Act itself is without jurisdiction. An industrial dispute has been defined in Clause (k) of Section 2 of the ID Act, as under: (k) "industrial dispute" means any dispute or difference between employers and employers, or between employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour, of any persons Statement of claim is contained in Ex.D/2, which contains the following prayer: (a) That the Corporation may kindly be directed to grant enhanced periodical installments of the dearness allowance to employees in terms of settlement dated 03.02.1988, which are due from 01.01.1998. (b) That the corporation may kindly be directed to implement Vth Central Pay Commission report with effect from 01.01.1996. (b) That the corporation may kindly be directed to implement Vth Central Pay Commission report with effect from 01.01.1996. Term 'workmen' has been defined in Clause (s) of Section 2 of the ID Act in the following manner: (s) "workman" means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person (i) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or (ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison; or (iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or (iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding one thousand six hundred rupees per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him,, functions mainly of a managerial nature. It has been contended that the workmen who have sought voluntary retirement are no longer workmen and their dispute is not covered under Section 10 of the ID Act. This is again a misconceived submission because when a dispute is raised against the employer, the person regarding whose employment, non-employment, terms of employment or conditions of labour the dispute is raised, need not be, strictly speaking, a 'workman' within the meaning of the Act, but must be one in whose employment, non-employment, terms of employment or conditions of labour the workmen as a class have a direct or substantial interest. We may successfully refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Workmen of Dimarkuchi Tea Estate v. Management of Dimakuchi Tea Estate AIR 1958 SC 353 . 15. We may successfully refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Workmen of Dimarkuchi Tea Estate v. Management of Dimakuchi Tea Estate AIR 1958 SC 353 . 15. Reliance on behalf of the Petitioner has been placed on the decision of Kerala High Court in the case of Purandaran and Ors. v. Hindustan Lever Limited 2001 II LLJ 52. In this case, the workmen opted for voluntary retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, as it existed. After acceptance of the benefits under the said scheme, a change was made in the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, enhancing certain benefits. It was held that the workmen who accepted the benefit under the scheme, which existed at the relevant time, cannot be treated as workmen thereafter. Thus, the case is quite distinguishable on facts. In the case in hand, workmen are claiming dearness allowance during the period before they accepted voluntary retirement and were admittedly workmen within the definition of Section 2(s) of the ID Act. Further reliance on the Apex Court decision in the case of J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Limited v. State of UP and Ors. (1990) 4 SCC 27 is also of no avail, because the aggrieved person was not found to be a workman after acceptance of his resignation by the employer. The decision of High Court of Patna in the case of Yugeshwar Kumar (Y. Kumar) v. Union of India and Ors. 2003 II LLJ 1021 is also distinguishable as there was a challenge to Voluntary Retirement Scheme, after accepting the benefit under it. In the case of Everestee v. District Labour Officer 1999 II CLR 380 the Appellant opted for voluntary retirement pursuant to the scheme offered by the management, entered into an agreement regarding the terms of his retirement and got retirement as per accepted terms. It was held that after the acceptance, the Appellant cannot claim that he will come under the purview of ID Act as a workman. This also was a case where a change in terms opposed to the aforesaid norms of voluntary retirement was sought. In the case in hand, the question referred to was about propriety of payment of dearness allowance to the employees of the Corporation with effect from 01.01.1998. This also was a case where a change in terms opposed to the aforesaid norms of voluntary retirement was sought. In the case in hand, the question referred to was about propriety of payment of dearness allowance to the employees of the Corporation with effect from 01.01.1998. Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) was made applicable to the Corporation which contained no clause that workmen opting for voluntary retirement will not claim dearness allowance as per their entitlement. Thus, Everestee's decision (supra) is also of no assistance to the Petitioner. 16. Relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukand Limited v. Mukand Staff and officers' association (2004) 10 Supreme Court Cases 460, it has been argued that the Tribunal while deciding the reference has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue of non-workmen. On perusal of the question referred to, it is clear that the dispute was related to the dearness allowance of the employees, when they were workmen of the Corporation. Thus, the decision in Mukand Limited case (supra) is also of no assistance to the Petitioner. 17. Relying further on (1995) SCC (L & S) 631 (Shramik Uttarsh Sabha v. Raymond Woollen Mills Limited and Ors.), it has been argued that Respondent No. 1 has no right to represent the workmen referred to in terms of reference. This objection is beyond the scope and ambit of the present writ petition and we accordingly, hold so. 18. Shri Patwardhan, learned Counsel drew attention of this Court to the law laid down by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Arka Bikas Chakravorty v. State Bank of India and Ors. (1997) 10 SCC 417 to contend that reference under Section 10 of the ID Act was without jurisdiction since the matter was initiated under MPIR Act, which became inapplicable by virtue of the notification dated 17.05.2006. This has already been answered against the Petitioner, because the order of reference under Section 10 of the ID Act has been issued after taking into consideration the effect of MPIR Amendment Act, 2000. 19. Lastly, it has been contended that the learned Tribunal was required to strike a balance with financial status of the Corporation. According to the Corporation, it having already suffered a very huge loss, will have to carry an additional burden, if award is maintained. 19. Lastly, it has been contended that the learned Tribunal was required to strike a balance with financial status of the Corporation. According to the Corporation, it having already suffered a very huge loss, will have to carry an additional burden, if award is maintained. We are not impressed by this submission, because the retiree (VRS) employees are found to be entitled to revised dearness allowance as per the revision, during their service period before v. Thus, the defence of the Petitioner for not granting enhanced dearness allowance to the voluntary retirees under the scheme, is not liable to be accepted, more so, when it is in consonance with the settlement, which is binding on the Petitioner. 20. Impugned award has also been opposed on behalf of the Petitioner on the ground that the settlement referred to by the Industrial Tribunal could not have been taken into consideration. Again a misconceived submission has been made because settlement is binding on the Petitioner and the Petitioner is bound to comply with the terms and conditions of the settlement. 21. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further contended that without decision about right of dearness allowance, reference could not have been legally decided. This submission is totally misconceived, because the Tribunal is found to have rightly held voluntary retirees under scheme to be entitled to revised dearness allowance during their tenure. In the result, the petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, effect of this order is directed to be kept in abeyance for a period of one month in order to enable the aggrieved party to approach the Apex Court, because money pursuant to the impugned award is kept in FDR due to this Court's order. No order as to costs. C.c. as per rules.