JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. Heard Mr. R. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned CGC. None has appeared for the respondent No. 3. This writ petition is directed against the judgement and award dated 21.5.2001 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Guwahati in reference No. 21(C)/2000, by which the following reference has been answered in favour of a particular workman. Whether the demand of Association of ICRM, Dibrugarh to continue the opportunity for promotion to their staff at par with the centre of ICMR at different places on the post of Technical Officers is correct or not ? If so, what relief should be provided to them ? 2. The matter involves filling up of the post of Technical officer. While it was the case of the management that the post is required to be filled up by engineering graduates through advertisement etc, it was the case of the workman that as per the service rules the same is required to be filled up by promotion from amongst the eligible technical staff having technical background and experience. The learned Tribunal has held that the case of the workman for promotion to the post of Technical officer is required to be considered by the management and accordingly direction has been issued to stop direct recruitment to the said post and to consider the case of the eligible staff for promotion to the said post. 3. Both Mr. R. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned CGC, submit that the present position relating to the aforesaid post of Technical officer is not known to them. Long more than 11 years have gone by since the impugned award dated 21.5.2001 was passed. The learned Tribunal has passed the award in reference to the service rules which provides for filling up of the post of Technical Officer from amongst the technical staff having technical background and experience. It was contended on behalf of the workman that in other institutions of India of similar nature, the post of technical officer is filled up from amongst the staff having technical background and experience. It was contended that since there was available Officers to fill up the post, the same could not have been advertised. 4. During the proceeding before the Tribunal, the recruitment rule had been produced. It was contended that since there was available Officers to fill up the post, the same could not have been advertised. 4. During the proceeding before the Tribunal, the recruitment rule had been produced. As recorded in the impugned award, the representative of the management did not deny the existence of such rules in their establishment. However, it was contended that they could come to know about the existence of such rules only after issuance of the advertisement. It was in the aforesaid circumstances, the learned Tribunal passed the impugned award directing consideration of the case in the above manner. I see no reason to interfere with the same. 5. When the matter was taken up on 15.11.2006, a question arose as to whether the learned Tribunal could have adjudicated the matter in view of the moot question as to whether the petitioner institute could be said to be an industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Noticing the fact that a similar question had arisen in another writ petition being WP(C) No. 5375/2003, which was disposed of on 12.9.2006 directing the learned Industrial Tribunal to decide the question as to whether the petitioner Regional Medical Research Centre is an Industry under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, it was provided that the matter would be taken up after the decision of the Tribunal adjudicating upon the said issue. 6. It is on record that the said issue had been answered by the Industrial Tribunal by its award dated 6.6.2007 holding that the RMRC is an Industry within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. however, so far as the merit of the case is concerned, it has been held that since the service related matters are within the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal by virtue of notification dated 17.12.1998, it would be appropriate to refer the matter to the said Tribunal. 7. When the matter was taken up on 20.2.2011, Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner made a submission for disposal of the writ petition in terms of the aforesaid order dated 6.6.2007 passed by the learned Tribunal. However, as recorded in the order passed yesterday i.e. 25.7.2012, the writ petition could not be disposed of in absence of Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned CGC. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner made a submission for disposal of the writ petition in terms of the aforesaid order dated 6.6.2007 passed by the learned Tribunal. However, as recorded in the order passed yesterday i.e. 25.7.2012, the writ petition could not be disposed of in absence of Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned CGC. Thus, the matter stood adjourned and in due course, the petitioner prayed for making a challenge to the said order dated 6.6.2007 passed by the learned Tribunal holding that RMRC is an industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 8. The petitioner has filed an affidavit bringing on record the said order dated 6.6.2007 and making the submission that the said findings is not sustainable in law. However, as recorded in the order passed yesterday i.e. 25.7.2012, there is no formal challenge to the said order dated 6.6.2007, which was passed in another reference, which formed subject matter of WP (C) No. 5375/2003. Thus, here is a case in which the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 6.6.2007 passed in another reference forming subject matter of another writ petition being WP (C) No. 5375/2003 and that too in the form of an affidavit. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 6.6.2007 passed in another reference forming subject matter of another writ petition i.e. WP (C) No. 5375/2003, it was incumbent on their part to make a challenge to the same in that case and at appropriate time. 9. All the above aspects of the matter have been recorded in the order passed yesterday i.e. 25.7.2012. 10. In view of the above, while not interfering with the impugned award dated 21.5.2001 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Guwahati in reference case No. 21(C)/2000, the petitioner is granted liberty to make a formal challenge to the order dated 6.6.2007 referred to above, which however, needless to say will be subject to the Law of Limitation, delay and latches. The writ petition is disposed of in the above manner, without however, any order as to costs. Registry shall send down the LCR immediately.