ORDER 1. This matter has a chequered history. The respondent No.2 was terminated from service on 14.6.1986. He raised an industrial dispute which in turn was decided by the Labour Court on 15.10.1996 (Annexure P-2). The Labour Court directed reinstatement of respondent No.2 without back wages. This award of the Labour Court was assailed by the employer before this Court by filing Writ Petition No.324/1997. The said writ petition was decided on 27.11.1999. This Court directed that the employer shall pay compensation of Rs. 2 lacs to the present respondent No.2. On payment of compensation, order of reinstatement shall stand set aside. It was made clear that if the compensation of Rs.2 lacs is not paid to the workman within a period of one month then the workman shall be entitled for reinstatement with back wages. 2. Admittedly, the said compensation of Rs.2 lacs could not be paid to the workman within a period of one month and it was belatedly paid to the workman on 6.1.2000. Admittedly, the workman received the said amount of Rs.2 lacs from the employer. The employer filed MCC No.87/2001 seeking extension of time because the said compensation amount was belatedly given to the workman. This Court on 18.3.2005 dismissed the said MCC. 3. The workman filed a contempt petition before this Court. Upon receiving notices, employer entered appearance and made a statement before this Court that workman is free to join back. The workman, accordingly joined back/reinstated. The employer passed theorder dated 25.7.2007 (Annexure P-9) whereby, the services of the workman were terminated. Against this order, the workman raised the industrial dispute by filing conciliation application under section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act (for brevity ‘I.D. Act’). The employer preferred a SLP before the Supreme Court against the order passed by this Court rejecting MCC No.87/2001. The Supreme Court on 31.8.2007 allowed the SLP and opined that the extension of time sought by the petitioner for a minor delay in complinace of the conditional order passed in favour of the workman makes it a fit case for condonation of delayfor complying the order passed by the writ Court. Accordingly, the order passed in MCC No.87/2001 was set aside and the SLP was allowed. 4. Admittedly, at the time of 2nd termination of respondent No.2 on 25.7.2007, the order of the Supreme Court was not in existence. Accordingly, the order passed in MCC No.87/2001 was set aside and the SLP was allowed. 4. Admittedly, at the time of 2nd termination of respondent No.2 on 25.7.2007, the order of the Supreme Court was not in existence. The above conciliation proceedings became unsuccessful and, therefore, the appropriate Government in exercise of power under section 10 of the I.D. Act referred the industrial dispute to the Labour Court for its lawful adjudication. This order Annexure P-1 preferred by the Government is under challenge in the present petition. 5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the earlier Award of Labour Court was interfered with by Court by passing the conditional order in Writ Petition No.324/1997. The employer was given option to pay compensation in lieu of reinstatement to the workman. The compensation was belatedly paid by the employer, but such delay stood condoned in view of judgment of the Supreme Court dated 31.8.2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that respondent No.2’s reinstatement was done because of pressure mounted by the workman in the contempt proceedings. The workman has received the compensation and delay in paying the compensation was condoned by the Supreme Court. The inevitable result of such condonation is that the workman shall not be treated to be reinstated. In lieu there of, the workman is entitlted only for compensation of Rs.2 lacs, which has already been paid to him. It is submitted that the reinstatement was done because of contempt proceedings and such reinstatement should be treated as non est in the light of the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court, whereby, the entire period is condoned and the MCC No.87/2001 filed before this Court stood accepted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that reinstatement of the respondent No.2 should be treated as non est and, therefore, the termination order dated 25.7.2007 does not give him any fresh cause of action in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, termination of respondent No.2 will not fall within the ambit of “industrial dispute”. 6. Per contra, Shri B.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that the reinstatement order dated 5.1.2006 is not a conditional order. The workman was unconditionally reinstated in compliance of order dated 27.11.1999 passed by this Court. 6. Per contra, Shri B.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that the reinstatement order dated 5.1.2006 is not a conditional order. The workman was unconditionally reinstated in compliance of order dated 27.11.1999 passed by this Court. It is contended that when the order Annexure P-9 was passed the order of Supreme Court was not in existence. The workman was terminated on the ground of misconduct which gives fresh cause of action to him in view of section 12(k) of I.D. Act and also in the light of judgment rendered in the case of Deputy C.M.E. Sub Area Manager, Shahdol v. Union of India and others, reported in 2008(2) JLJ 85 = 2008(1) MPHT 28 (FB). It is further contended that there exists an industrial dispute and the appropriate Government is well within its right to refer the matter to the Labour Court when such dispute exists. It is not open to this Court to interfere with the reference order Annexure P-1. 7. I have bestowed my anxious consideration to the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. On a bare perusal of order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.324/1997, it is crystal clear that the employer was given option to reinstate the workman or to pay compensation in lieu there of. The compensation was admittedly paid belatedly. The MCC No.87/2001 filed by the employer stood rejected and time was not extended for payment of compensation to the workman. The workman took the benefit of it and under the grab of conditional order of writ Court, filed contempt petition. The conditional order of the writ Court was to pay the compensation to the workman within a period of one month, which was belatedly paid by the employer and after receiving the compensation, the workman filed contempt petition. Faced with this situation, the employer reinstated the workman in service on 5.1.2006. However, the workman was terminated from service on 25.7.2007. Thereafter, the Supreme Court passed the order on 31.8.2007 in civil appeal and condoned the delay and set aside the order passed by this Court in MCC No.87/2001. 9. The pivotal question to be decided by this Court is with regarding the effect of this order of the Supreme Court on the parties. Thereafter, the Supreme Court passed the order on 31.8.2007 in civil appeal and condoned the delay and set aside the order passed by this Court in MCC No.87/2001. 9. The pivotal question to be decided by this Court is with regarding the effect of this order of the Supreme Court on the parties. The order of the writ Court in Writ Petition No.324/1997 is very clear which provides option to the employer to grant compensation to the workman in lieu of reinstatement. In the considered opinion of this Court, once the delay in paying compensation is condoned by the Supreme Court, the inevitable effect of the said order is that the compensation so paid must be treated to be within permissible time. Thus, the question of reinstatement would not arise. The reinstatement of the workman was made in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and because of pendency of contempt proceedings. Whether or not it is mentioned in the reinstatement order, it is clear from the order sheet dated 6.1.2006 in Contempt Petition No.94/2000 that the employer made the statement before this Court that the workman is free to join duty at any date. Thus, it was done because of the pressure of contempt proceedings. 10. The matter may be seen from another angle. If MCC No.87/2001 would have been allowed initially by this Court, there would have been no question of reinstatement of the workman. Thus, the effect of Supreme Court order is that the workman was not entitled for reinstatement and he shall be entitled for compensation only which has already been paid to him. The termination order is issued only when the workman was reinstated. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case it must be held that such reinstatement is non est in the eyes of law because of the order passed by the Supreme Court. Resultantly, the second termination order will not give any cause of action to the workman nor it will fall within the ambit of ‘industrial dispute’. 11. No doubt, section 2(k) of I.D. Act which defines the industrial dispute is very wide. If order of Supreme Court would not have been there, the matter would have been different. In the light of said order of the Supreme Court, it is clear that the reinstatement and subsequent termination of the workman cannot give rise to any industrial dispute. 12. If order of Supreme Court would not have been there, the matter would have been different. In the light of said order of the Supreme Court, it is clear that the reinstatement and subsequent termination of the workman cannot give rise to any industrial dispute. 12. In this view of the matter and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, there was no industrial dispute which could have been referred to by the appropriate Government to the Labour Court. 13. Full Bench decision of this Court in case of Deputy C.M.E. Sub Area Manager, Shahdol (supra), has no application in the present case. Once it is held that no industrial dispute against the workman exists, there is no question to refer the matter to the Labour Court. 14. As analyzed above, in view of order of Supreme Court, it is clear that there was no question of workman’s reinstatement. Thus, the subsequent termination based on such reinstatement, in the peculiar facts of this case will not give any cause of action to the workman to raise industrial dispute. However, it is contended by Shri B.P. Singh that for the period workman has worked after the reinstatement, he has already filed certain proceeding to claim monetary benefits. It is made clear that findings in this order are given with a view to examine the validity of reference. This order will not create any hindrance or adverse effect against the workman in said pending proceedings. In other words, it is made clear that this order will have no adverse impact on any other pending litigation of the workman for a relief legally due to him in accordance with law. 15. Resultantly, the impugned order of reference (Annexure P-1) and proceedings of Labour Court based on it are set aside. Petition is allowed, but without any order as to costs.