JUDGMENT : Shivakant Prasad, J. The Judgment of the Court was as follows : Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties at length. 2. The petitioner has challenged in this writ petition against the impugned Award dated 19th April, 2002 passed by the learned Judge, 9th Industrial Tribunal, Durgaur. 3. The chronological evidence leading to the instant writ petition is that the shares of the Indian Iron 8s Steel Company Ltd. held by the Central Government stood transferred to and vested in the 'integral company', the Steel Authority of India Ltd and the IISCO employees of the cooperative stores undertook to run the canteens and the management in the said canteens run by the contractors who were taken over by the employees' of the company. Various demands were raised by the persons employed by the cooperative stores and such disputes were resolved and a settlement was arrived at under section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on 01.08.1980 being Annexure 'PI' annexed to the writ petition. On 25th September, 1985, the employees of the canteen raised fresh demands and after negotiations with the employees of the canteen and IISCO Employees consumers cooperative a fresh tripartite settlement was arrived at covering wage structure, fringe benefit and condition of service as it is depicted from Annexure 'PI'. Another settlement was arrived at on 11.01.1986 between them. The Government of West Bengal referred the industrial dispute to the 9th Industrial Tribunal for deciding the issues as to whether the workers who were working under the cooperative stores construed as employees to IISCO, presently the Steel Authority of India Ltd. The Tribunal vide order dated 19.04.2002 passed an Award answering the issues in favour of the respondents precisely respondent no.4 directing to treat the employees of the canteen as employees of the respondent company and to release all service benefits from the date of reference whereas the employees of the canteen are actually the employees of the cooperative society of the petitioner's company are not directly employed by the company under the Rule. Accordingly, the writ petitioners have challenged the impugned Award is bad in law and the same is to be set aside. 4. The contention of the petitioner in this writ petition is reproduced hereunder: "That the IISCO Employees Consumers Co-operative Stores Ltd. is a separate entity and its employees are not the employees of the company. Accordingly, the writ petitioners have challenged the impugned Award is bad in law and the same is to be set aside. 4. The contention of the petitioner in this writ petition is reproduced hereunder: "That the IISCO Employees Consumers Co-operative Stores Ltd. is a separate entity and its employees are not the employees of the company. Any dispute connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment etc. of such persons cannot be said to be an industrial dispute between those person and the Petitioner Company. 5. Since long the employees of the petitioner company have been getting certain facility. In or about 1977, the employees' cooperative undertook to run the canteens and since then the management of the canteens run by the contractor were taken over by the employees' cooperative in a phased way. When the canteens were being run by the contractor, the contractor employed persons of their choice and when the canteens were run by the cooperative, the cooperative employed and/or retained persons according to their choice. 6. The persons employed by the employees' cooperative raised various demands from time to time. Such dispute was resolved and a settlement was arrived at under section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes act, 1947 on 1.8.1980 by and between he employees' cooperative as the employer and employees of the canteens. During and after expiry of the said settlement, employees of the canteens raised fresh demands and after negotiation with the employees of the canteen and the IISCO Employees Consumers Cooperative a fresh tripartite settlement dated 25th September, 1985 was arrived at covering wage structure, fringe benefit and condition of service. A further settlement was arrived at between the same parties on 27.9.1996. Copies of the said Memoranda of Settlement dated 1.8.1980, 25.09.1985 and 27.09.1996 respectively are annexed hereto and collectively marked "P/1"............." 7. A further settlement was arrived at between the same parties on 27.9.1996. Copies of the said Memoranda of Settlement dated 1.8.1980, 25.09.1985 and 27.09.1996 respectively are annexed hereto and collectively marked "P/1"............." 7. It would appear from the impugned Award that reference was made under section 10(2)A of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 by the Labour Committee of Government of West Bengal to the Industrial Tribunal for deciding the issues as to whether the workmen engaged in canteen of M/s IISCO employees' consumers cooperative are the workmen of M/s Indian Iron Steel Company Limited or whether the demand of the workmen engaged in the various canteens of the company to be treated as for other workmen of the company for the purpose of wages and other benefits if justified. The moot issues were decided in favour of the workers of the canteen ran by the cooperative society and the learned Tribunal by the impugned award allowed the references to the fact that the workmen who were engaged in various canteen of M/s IISCO and the demand of the workmen engaged in the various canteen of the company be treated at par with the workmen of the company for the purpose of wages and other benefits to be given to the workmen with effect from the date when the reference was made by the learned Tribunal. 8. This order appears to be contrary to his own view of the learned Tribunal who has observed that IISCO consumer cooperative limited is a corporate body no doubt and the admitted fact is that the name of cooperative namely IISCO employees' consumer cooperative society limited is a name after the change of the earlier name IISCO employees and the change of name has been approved by the cooperative authority under West Bengal Cooperative Society Act, 1983, so existence of the present cooperative society of the statutory body in the eye of law and it cannot be so challenged. 9. 9. Having perused the impugned order and the contentions of the learned counsel of the petitioners' company, I am in agreement to such contentions that IISCO Employees consumer cooperative stores limited is a separate entity and his employees are not the employees of the company and any dispute connected with the employment or non-employment of such persons cannot be said to be the industrial dispute between those persons and the petitioners' company and their rights and obligations can only be determined in terms of the agreement arrived at by and between the cooperative society which revealed from the Annexure 'Pl'. In support of his contention, the petitioners' company has referred to an unreported decision in the case of Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. (F.M.A. 194 of 2007) passed by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court and this Court is well persuaded by the decision and its findings elaborately made by the Hon'ble Division Bench with conclusion that principles laid down by the Hon'ble supreme Court in a decision reported in (2000)5 SCC 531 in the case of State Bank of India & Ors. v. State Bank of India Canteen Employers' Union (Bengal Circle) & Ors. wherein it has been held that the workers employed by various unions of the cooperative stores are not entitled to be treated as the employees of the bank and, accordingly, adhering the principles laid to the said decisions the Hon'ble Division Bench concluded that the Division Bench did not subscribed the view of the learned Tribunal and that of the learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd v. State of West Bengal & Ors. in W.P. 137 (W) of 2003confirmed the order of the learned Tribunal earlier made. 10. The learned counsel of the State has also agreed upon in substance with the contention which has been put forth before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner's company. 11. In the context of the discussion above, this Court finds that the learned Tribunal has erred in law in passing the impugned award which cannot be allowed to be sustained in law. Therefore, the impugned award suffers from irregularity being devoid of merit. 12. Accordingly, the Award passed by the learned Tribunal dated 19th April, 2002 is hereby quashed. 13. In the context of the discussion above, this Court finds that the learned Tribunal has erred in law in passing the impugned award which cannot be allowed to be sustained in law. Therefore, the impugned award suffers from irregularity being devoid of merit. 12. Accordingly, the Award passed by the learned Tribunal dated 19th April, 2002 is hereby quashed. 13. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. 14. Let a copy of this order be sent down to the learned Tribunal for information. Writ petition disposed of.