JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, J. 1. This petition is instituted against the award dated 9.7.2014 rendered by the Presiding Judge, H.P. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla in Reference No. 102 of 2009 2. Key facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that respondent No. 2 workman has raised the industrial dispute. The following reference was made by the State to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court: “Whether demand raised by President, CITU, District Committee, Solan, before the Managing Director, M/s. Winsome Textiles Industries Ltd., 1, Industrial Area Baddi, District Solan that worker Shri Ramesh Chand S/o Sh. Sunder Ram be paid an amount of Rs. 84,797/- only for the arrears of increment from the period 1.4.2003 to December, 2007 is legal and justified? If yes, what relfief and consequential service benefits the above worker is entitled to.” 3. Respondent No. 2 filed claim petition. According to the averments made in the claim petition, he was working as Generator Operator since 23.5.1995. He was entitled to Rs. 84,797/- with effect from 1.4.2003 to December, 2007. He has made various requests through Centre of Indian Trade Unions to the petitioner-management. The reply was filed by the petitioner. Preliminary objection was taken that the reference made to the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal was neither competent nor maintainable as there was no trade union in the industrial establishment of the Winsome Textile Industries Limited at Baddi, District Solan. The annual increments were already paid to respondent No. 2. 4. Issues were framed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 30.8.2010. 5. Respondent No. 2 appeared as PW-1. According to him, his annul increments were stopped from 1.4.2003 upto 2007. His basic salary of Rs. 280/- per month was also deducted with effect from 1.4.1997. He has proved copy of representation Ex.PA and copy of demand notice dated 10.10.2006 mark ‘X’ which was sent to the Managing Director of the petitioner-company. He has denied the suggestion that there was no union in the company. According to him, there were two unions, i.e. (i) Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh (BMS) and (ii) Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU). He has deposed that mark ‘X’ was raised through CITU. 6. PW-2 Shyam Lal has supported the version of PW-1. 7. The employer has led evidence of Sh. Surinder Kumar by filing affidavit Ex.R-1. According to him, respondent No. 2 has never served letter dated 8.2.2008 on the company. He has deposed that mark ‘X’ was raised through CITU. 6. PW-2 Shyam Lal has supported the version of PW-1. 7. The employer has led evidence of Sh. Surinder Kumar by filing affidavit Ex.R-1. According to him, respondent No. 2 has never served letter dated 8.2.2008 on the company. The claim for increments with effect from 1.4.2003 to December, 2007 was beyond the terms of reference. 8. Issue No. 3 “whether the petition was not maintainable, as alleged? OPR” was framed on 30.8.2010. Learned Presiding Judge, Labour Court gave specific findings that the case of respondent No. 2 was espoused by CITU through its President. The Court has also gone through mark ‘X’. It has been sent by the Centre of Indian Trade Unions to the Managing Director of the petitioner company on 10.10.2006. The Labour Court has partly allowed the claim petition of respondent No. 2 and he has been held entitled to annual increments @ Rs. 400/- w.e.f. 1.4.2003 to December, 2007 by deducting the amount of increments which were already paid to him w.e.f. 1.4.2003 to December, 2007. Case of respondent No. 2 has been espoused, as discussed hereinabove, by the Centre of Indian Trade Unions. It has come in the statement of PW-1 that two Trade Unions were operating, i.e. (i) Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh and (ii) Centre of Indian Trade Unions. In case the petitioner was aggrieved by reference No. 102 of 2009, the same was required to be challenged specifically. Petitioner has never challenged reference No. 102 of 2009. Now, the petitioner is estopped from challenging the making of reference at this belated stage, which was made in the year 2009. The reference was specific to the effect whether respondent No. 2 was entitled to sum of Rs. 84,797/- towards the arrears of increments from 1.4.2003 to December, 2007. Thus, it cannot be said that the award made by the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal was beyond the terms of reference. 9. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in J.H. Jadhav vs. Forbes Gokak Limited, (2005) 3 SCC 202 while dealing with the requirement of espousal of cause of single workman by the union have held that there is no particular form prescribed to effect such espousal. Normally, union must express itself in the form of a resolution which should be proved if in issue. Normally, union must express itself in the form of a resolution which should be proved if in issue. However, proof of support by union may also be available in other ways. And it would depend on facts of each case. Their Lordships have further held that Division Bench has misapplied principles of judicial review in interfering with decision of Tribunal. Their Lordships have held as under: “7. As far as espousal is concerned there is no particular form prescribed to effect such espousal. Doubtless, the Union must normally express itself in the form of a resolution which should be proved if it is in issue. However proof of support by the Union may also be available aliunde. It would depend upon the facts of each case. The Tribunal had addressed its mind to the question, appreciated the evidence both oral and documentary and found that the Union had espoused the appellant's cause.” 10. Accordingly, in view of the analysis and discussion made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.