JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. N. Dhar, the learned counsel appearing for the Cachar Paper Project workers’ union (hereinafter referred to as the Union), who are espousing the interest of the workmen of the Cachar Paper Mill at Panchgram in Hailakandi district. The Management of the Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the HPCL) is represented by the learned advocate Mr. J. Roy. 2. The Union challenges the order dated 22.02.2007 (Annexure-9) in Reference Case No.15/1999, whereby the learned Industrial Tribunal, Silchar declined to answer the reference on merit and the Union was directed to approach the competent forum if so advised. The issue before the Tribunal was whether the Management is justified in changing the Medical Expenses Reimbursement Rules for domiciliary treatment as amended through the Circular No.6/1997 of 20.01.1997. 3. Previously under the Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd. Employees (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the 1970 Rules), complete reimbursement of medical treatment at the residence was allowable for the employees. But through the decision taken by the Managing Board of the HPCL on 17.01.1997, the reimbursement Rules for residential treatment was changed and under Clause 8(e) of the circular dated 20.01.1997, the reimbursement was limited to one month’s salary and for claims in excess of one month’s salary, the reimbursement is to be made in the next block of three years thereafter. In other words, medical imbursement claims in excess of a month’s salary can be availed not at one go but, it may spread across a period beyond a block of three years or more. 4. On the above changes in the reimbursement policy, when the aggrieved workmen raised an industrial dispute and conciliation failed, the Govt. under Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 framed the following reference:- 1(a). Whether the management of H.P.C.Ltd. (C.P.M.) Panchgram is justified in changing the service rule/condition of their workmen in the form of i) medical expenses reimbursement Rules ii) leave travel concession rules and iii) medical rules. (b) If not, whether the management is liable to restore the service condition, so change, in their earlier form? 5. After the Industrial tribunal registered the reference, pleadings were exchanged and evidence was adduced by the parties. (b) If not, whether the management is liable to restore the service condition, so change, in their earlier form? 5. After the Industrial tribunal registered the reference, pleadings were exchanged and evidence was adduced by the parties. Before the Tribunal, the Management contended that the changes in reimbursement of domiciliary treatment was made in due consultation with the workmen, but the Union on the other hand contended that the changes were notified without consultation with the Union. 6. The learned Tribunal noted that the changes in reimbursement Rules of domiciliary treatment was introduced across the board for all the 3 undertakings under the HPCL and on this reasoning it declared that the grievance of the workmen of the Cachar Paper Mill cannot be examined by the Silchar Tribunal. Consequently the reference was answered (not on merit) against the Union and the aggrieved Union was permitted to approach the competent forum. 7. For the petitioners, Mr. N. Dhar, the learned counsel submits that since reference was made under Section 10 of the I.D. Act, the Industrial Tribunal should have answered the reference on merit and the counsel argues that merely because the changes were effected in all the 3 units of the HPCL, the Industrial Tribunal is not denuded of its jurisdiction to examine the validity of the changes. 8. The petitioner contends that the changes in the Rules for reimbursement of domiciliary medical expenses was affected without notice to the workmen of the Cachar Paper Mill and accordingly they argue that the learned Tribunal should have answered whether the changes were made after due notice to the affected workmen under Section 9A of the I.D. Act. 9. In his turn Mr. J. Roy, the learned advocate firstly submits that the changes made in the Reimbursement Rules do not adversely impact the workmen and accordingly he argues that the learned Tribunal had no issue to be answered. The counsel further submits that the changes in the Reimbursement Rules was duly notified to the workmen by hanging the notice in the Paper Mill’s Notice Board and accordingly Mr. Roy argues that due notice under Section 9A of the I.D. Act was given to the affected workmen. 10. The counsel further submits that the changes in the Reimbursement Rules was duly notified to the workmen by hanging the notice in the Paper Mill’s Notice Board and accordingly Mr. Roy argues that due notice under Section 9A of the I.D. Act was given to the affected workmen. 10. The upper limit in the reimbursement Rules for domiciliary treatment were stipulated only for routine medical contingencies but full reimbursement for major treatment of heart, kidney, neurological or other complications of severe nature continued unchanged for the staff. But through the changes made by the circular no.6/1997 dated 20.01.1997, the ceiling limit of one month’s salary was stipulated for domiciliary treatment expenditure and when this ceiling limit is crossed in a single block of 3 years, the reimbursement can be expected only in the next block of three years. This is now deferred reimbursement scheme together with one month salary limit was brought into force w.e.f 01.04.1997. 11. Since the changes under the circular dated 20.01.1997 will certainly have an adverse impact on the workmen, the same could have been implemented only after notice is given in the prescribed manner as specified under Section 9A(a) of the Industrial Dispute Act. But although the Union specifically pleaded before the Industrial Tribunal that notice wasn’t given until the changes were actually announced, the learned Tribunal strangely pleading lack of jurisdiction, refused to answer on merit the addressed industrial reference. 12. It must also be borne in mind that the Management didn’t challenge the jurisdictional authority of the Industrial Tribunal on the count that the changes were applied to all the 3 units of the HPCL. Therefore although the reference was validly made under Section 10 of the I.D. Act, the learned Tribunal failed to give any specific answer on the reference. Since the Industrial Tribunal was competent to answer the reference on merit, the refusal to answer the same in my view has resulted in failure of justice. 13. In view of above, I remit the matter to the learned Industrial Tribunal, Silchar for an answer on the merit of the reference. For the fresh exercise, both parties will appear before the Silchar Tribunal on 23.05.2014. Upon their appearance, the learned Industrial Tribunal will afford fresh opportunities to both parties and thereafter give an answer on the merit of the reference. For the fresh exercise, both parties will appear before the Silchar Tribunal on 23.05.2014. Upon their appearance, the learned Industrial Tribunal will afford fresh opportunities to both parties and thereafter give an answer on the merit of the reference. With this direction, the case stands disposed of without any order on cost. 14. The Registry is accordingly directed to immediately return the LCRs along with the copy of this order to the learned Industrial Tribunal, Silchar.