JUDGMENT : M.M. Das, J. - In all the aforesaid writ applications, the petitioners have called in question the order dated 8.9.2006 passed in Tr. I.D. Case No. 1 of 2001 by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Officer, Bhubaneswar. To appreciate the case, the facts in chronology are required to be mentioned. On 14.1.1987, the workers union raised a dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) alleging refusal of employment of 800 underground workmen with effect from who were working under different contractors. On the union submitted the names of few underground workmen, even though dispute was raised for 800 workmen. On 8.7.1987, the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), submitted failure report to the Central Government without the list of alleged workmen, who were refused employment. The Central Government on 5.10.1987 referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar with regard to the refusal of employment to 885 underground workmen with effect from 17.3.1986. The said reference also did not contain the list of disputant workmen, who were allegedly refused employment and their details. It was registered as I.D. Case No. 67 of 1987. On 19.7.1993, as no list of 885 workmen was available before the learned Tribunal, the Tribunal directed the representatives of the workmen to produce the names and detail addresses of all concerned workmen by passing the following order:-- Counsels representing the Management as well workmen is present. The Rept. of contractor is also present. A position is filed by the Counsel of management praying to direct the 2nd party workmen to lead evidence first. Copy served. Put up on 21.8.93 for filing objection to the petition of management and for hearing. The Rept. of workmen is directed to produce the name and detail address of all concerned workmen. 2. On 21.8.1993, as the Union submitted a list of some workmen without their details, the learned Tribunal directed the Central Government and the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) to furnish the father's name and detail addresses of concerned workmen by passing the following order:-- Counsel for management is present counsel for 2nd party union is also present and files list of some workmen without mentioning their father's name and detail address copy served the same be kept on record. Shri N.K. Mishra, Advocate is present for some workmen who are appearing individually and files a fresh petition praying to call for the documents from the A.L.C., Bhubaneswar (Central). The same be kept on record. Put up on 14.9.1993 for furnishing father's name and detail address of workmen by the 2nd party union. The petition dated 19.7.1993 filed by the management be put up on the date fixed write a letter to Government of India, Ministry of Labour as well as A.L.C. (C), Bhubaneswar for furnishing the father's name and detail address of concerned workmen. 3. The learned Tribunal again on 1.9.1993 directed the Central Government as well as the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) to furnish the list of the aggrieved workmen. Such direction was repeated on 17.11.1993. On 10.12.1993, the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) intimated the learned Tribunal through a letter that as the relevant file has already been weeded out, his office is not in a position to supply the information about the workmen. The Central Government also did not furnish any list of workmen and remained silent in the matter. 4. As no list of workmen was received by the learned Tribunal, the Tribunal returned the reference passing the order on 4.1.1994. Pursuant to the said order, the Central Government furnished a list of workmen on 19.1.1994 without any details. The Union, which initiated the industrial dispute, filed the objection to the said list furnished by the Central Government. The principal employer and also the contractor, who also raised the objection, thereafter preferred O.J.C. No. 5250 of 1994 before this Court, as the objection was overruled by the learned Tribunal. This Court disposed of the said writ application by order dated 20.9.1995, which is to the following effect:-- Heard. Grievance of management of Boula Chromite Mines of Ferro Alloys Corporation (in short, 'FACOR') is that order passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Orissa (in short, 'Tribunal'), directing Central Government to file a list of alleged workmen in respect of whom reference u/s 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, the 'Act') has not been effectively complied with. By order dated 4.1.1994, reference was returned to the Central Government with a direction to supply details of persons who were real workmen so that they can enjoy fruits of the award, if any made. By order dated 4.1.1994, reference was returned to the Central Government with a direction to supply details of persons who were real workmen so that they can enjoy fruits of the award, if any made. A list was received, but the same does not contain address of the persons enlisted. In few cases token numbers have been given. Apprehension of the management is that there may be fake persons stating their claims, and ultimately award if made may be unworkable. It appears that rival groups have also submitted their list. It goes without saying that in the absence of necessary details, it would not be possible for the Tribunal to consider cases of those who claim to be untitled to relief. In that view of the matter, details of persons whose cases are to be considered along with token numbers, if any, is required to be on record before the Tribunal taken up adjudication. The Tribunal would do well to consider lists on record and if it finds that process of adjudication would be difficult in the absence of necessary details, it shall pass necessary orders for submitting the lists which shall form the basis on adjudication. To avoid unnecessary delay parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 28.10.1995. 5. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the learned Tribunal took up the list and passed the following order on 29.12.1995:-- Initially, the Ministry of Labour did not forward the list of the workmen along with the reference. On 8.2.1987 the Statement of claims was submitted by the Union without the names and other particulars of the concerned workmen whose number according to the reference is 885. In the written statement filed by the Management it was alleged that the reference from the very out set was vague. For the first time on 17.6.1988 Mr. Latif in the capacity of General Secretary of the Union had filed a list of only 499 workmen. There upon management pointed out that out of them only 11 were workmen and the rest 488 were not on their rolls. It is noticed that the list submitted by Mr. Latif contained only some names and L.T.R. is without the addresses or any other particulars. On 6.7.1988 again Mr. Latif filed a list of 37 workers in the same manner as before. It is noticed that the list submitted by Mr. Latif contained only some names and L.T.R. is without the addresses or any other particulars. On 6.7.1988 again Mr. Latif filed a list of 37 workers in the same manner as before. When Shri Latif had himself raised the dispute before the Central Government in respect of 885 workmen, it is not understood how in two phases he was only able to furnish the names of 536 workmen. Is it to be construed that the rest 349 workers mentioned in the reference were all fake persons? On 21.8.1993, that is to say, after Shri Latif ceased to be the General Secretary of the Union, his successor in office through Advocate Shri S.N. Mohapatra filed a list of only 288 persons. That list also contained only names. Neither the signatures of those persons nor their addresses found place in the said list. On 19.7.1993 Advocate Shri N.K. Mishra filed a list of 187 persons and mentioned that he was appearing for individual workmen who were not members of the Union. Management raised objection on the ground that the list furnished on 21.8.1993 contained the names of several fake persons and that in the lists filed separately by Advocate Shri S.N. Mohapatra and Shri N.K. Mishra certain names were common. Xxxxxx xxx xxx That it is a vague list there can be little doubt. The list purports to have been supplied by some Union activities without the knowledge of the parties and their advocates who have entered appearance in this reference case. The list has not been authenticated by the Ministry of Labour either. Xxxxxx xxx xxx Instantly, the facts and circumstances remaining the same, the reference is bound to fail for want of proper application of mind by the concerned appropriate Government. However, before rejecting the reference I would like to afford another opportunity to the Central Government to ascertain all the necessary particulars in respect of the 885 workmen and confirm in writing that they are capable of being identified. For it identification remains a matter of doubt, any Award, if passed will be either un-implementable or the benefit of the Award will be reaped by fake persons who are not worthy of it. In either case it will occasion failure of justice. For it identification remains a matter of doubt, any Award, if passed will be either un-implementable or the benefit of the Award will be reaped by fake persons who are not worthy of it. In either case it will occasion failure of justice. Copy of this order be sent to the Central Government with a direction to report full compliance by 31.1.1996. The reference is hereby returned. 6. Pursuant to the above order, on 12/15.9.1997, the RLC (C), who was neither directed nor authorized under the I.D. Act, through his letter, furnished a list of 885 workmen, which was prepared and furnished by 5 workmen. 7. The I.D. Case thereafter was transferred to the Industrial Tribunal, Rourkela and registered as I.D. Case No. 2 of 1997 (C). The petitioner contractor was set ex parte on 20.1.1998. On 4.3.1998, 187 workmen, as submitted by the learned counsel for the workmen before the Tribunal, were accepted by the Tribunal, which passed an order that no identification was required as the Central Government has furnished the father's name, address and token numbers of the 2nd party workmen. The contractor raised objection to the said list and its genuineness on 2.6.1998 and prayed to direct the RLC to give evidence as to from which source, he got the information about the workmen. The said application was rejected by the learned Tribunal on 27.3.2000, on an application filed by the contractor, the ex parte order was recalled and the contractor filed an objection to the genuineness of the list. The learned Tribunal found that the list is not a complete one and, accordingly, directed the 2nd party to furnish the omissions. The Union also raised its objection to the list and disputed the names forwarded by the RLC (C) as vague. On another application was filed by a group of workmen to recall the order dated 28.4.2000 passed by the learned Tribunal. The Tribunal, by order dated 2.6.2000 held that his predecessor has finally accepted the list after giving opportunity to all the parties to challenge the same and since this matter has already been decided by the learned Tribunal, there is no necessity for further asking for a detailed list of workmen. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner, in W.P.(C) Nos. 14327 and 14328 of 2006, filed O.J.C. No. 6808 of 2000 before this Court. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner, in W.P.(C) Nos. 14327 and 14328 of 2006, filed O.J.C. No. 6808 of 2000 before this Court. The said writ application was disposed of by this Court by order dated 16.3.2005 quashing the order dated 4.3.1998 and other consequential orders and directing the learned Tribunal to give an opportunity to all the parties to file their respective objections to the list of workmen and further this Court directed the learned Tribunal to take a decision de novo with regard to the identification of the workmen in presence of all the parties. 8. During pendency of the aforesaid writ application, the I.D. Case was transferred to the CGIT, Bhubaneswar and renumbered as Tr. I.D. Case No. 1 of 2001. 9. All the parties filed their respective objections challenging the list of workmen submitted by the RLC (C) on 25.4.2005 except the workmen, who are represented by Shri N.K. Mishra, learned Counsel. The learned Tribunal, upon hearing the petitions, by order dated 8.9.2006, held that since the requirement of the reference is to examine the action of the management in refusing employment to the underground workers with effect from 17.3.1986, the same can be adjudicated without identification of workmen and, accordingly, directed the parties to adduce their evidence on the action of the management pending identification of the workers, as without such identification, the reference can also be answered. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 8.9.2006, the petitioners, in the respective writ applications, have filed three writ applications, which are being disposed of by this common judgment. 10. On going through the facts of the case, this Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 8.9.2006 is contrary to the directions issued by this Court on 20.9.1995 and 16.3.2005 in O.J.C. Nos. 5250 of 1994 and 6808 of 2000 as well as the order dated 29.12.1995 passed by the learned Tribunal. 11. On a holistic approach to the facts of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the reference made by the Central Government is vague due to lack of the list of workmen. Though the Central Government, after due application of mind, referred the dispute for adjudication without a verified list of workmen received from the Central Government along with the reference, the dispute was adjudicable, for which reasons, the reference is required to be returned. Though the Central Government, after due application of mind, referred the dispute for adjudication without a verified list of workmen received from the Central Government along with the reference, the dispute was adjudicable, for which reasons, the reference is required to be returned. Further, in absence of details of 885 workmen, the reference cannot be answered by the learned Tribunal by adjudicating the same and it will be a futile exercise. If the reference will be adjudicated on merit pending identification, in effect, no specific case of any workman can be decided by the learned Tribunal. Till date, no genuine list of workmen having been made available to the learned Tribunal, this Court finds that the dispute referred to by the Central Government cannot be adjudicated. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 8.9.2006 cannot be sustained, which is accordingly quashed. All the three writ applications stand allowed. Final Result : Allowed