JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Ms. M. Vidyalaxmi, learned counsel for the petitioners and also Mr. S. Nepolean, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents. 2. Though no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the Respondents, after notice was issued on 22.07.2016 to the respondents, considering the nature of the case, this Court is of the view that the present writ petition can be disposed of without waiting for any response from the respondents. 3. In this petition filed by the Manipur Spinning Mills Corporation Employees and Workers Association through its President and the Secretary, the petitioners have approached this Court for a direction to the State respondent No.1 to make a fresh reference in terms of the orders dated 23.12.2014 and 06.6.2015 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Manipur and also directing the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Manipur to proceed with the pending Industrial Tribunal No.1 of 2011. 4. From the pleadings, it appears that Manipur Spinning Mills Ltd. was wound up by an order dated 11th July, 2003. After winding up of the said Manipur Spinning Mills Corporation Ltd., it seems certain disputes arose about the payment of retiral benefits to the employees which led to the filing of the writ petition, being W.P(C) No.644 of 2005 before the then Hon'ble Gauhati High Court which was disposed of by the High Court on 26.11.2007 with the observation that the petitioner association may approach the concerned authority for the appropriate remedy under the relevant provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1972 and Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The said order was not interfered with by the appellate Court. Thereafter, the petitioner association through its President and the Secretary submitted a representation to the respondent No.1 on 05.06.2008 for referring the disputes regarding payment of retiral benefits and variable dearness allowance (VDA). The said order was not interfered with by the appellate Court. Thereafter, the petitioner association through its President and the Secretary submitted a representation to the respondent No.1 on 05.06.2008 for referring the disputes regarding payment of retiral benefits and variable dearness allowance (VDA). In the said representation, the representatives of the petitioner association specifically raised certain grievances as mentioned in para No.2 thereof, which are reproduced as below: “(i) Retirement benefits were not fully paid to the members of the association, (ii) Some of the members were not at all paid any retirement benefits, (iii) VDA was not correctly paid (iv) The sanctioned bill was not paid and (v) On Complaint 6(six) persons were tamed down by giving additional amount on agreement on 1.9.2003.” Accordingly, the petitioner association requested the respondent No.1 to refer the disputes to the Industrial Disputes Tribunal. On the basis of the aforesaid representation submitted by the petitioner association on 05.06.2008, the respondent No.1 wrote to the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Manipur on 12.02.2010 referring to the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Manipur the application dated 05.06.2008 of the petitioner association for consideration under relevant section of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Though the respondent No.1 made the reference in respect of the disputes raised by the petitioner association vide letter dated 12.02.2010, the said letter did not specifically mention those disputes raised by the petitioner association as mentioned in their representation dated 05.06.2008, which have been quoted above. 5. Be that as it may, the matter was taken up by the Industrial Tribunal, Manipur in Industrial Dispute No. 1 of 2011. It seems on the relinquishing of office by the then Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Manipur, another Presiding Officer was appointed on 04.3.2014, who passed an order on 23.12.2014 to enable the parties to approach the concerned authorities for making a fresh reference to the Industrial Tribunal, Manipur as required under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. This was done so, perhaps, due to the fact that the referral letter dated 12.02.2010 did not specifically mention the issues/disputes raised by the petitioner association. In view of the above order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Manipur, the representatives of the present petitioner association approached the respondent No.1 for formulation of the points for reference relating to the disputes for consideration by the Industrial Tribunal, Manipur by submitting a representation on 22.01.2015. In view of the above order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Manipur, the representatives of the present petitioner association approached the respondent No.1 for formulation of the points for reference relating to the disputes for consideration by the Industrial Tribunal, Manipur by submitting a representation on 22.01.2015. In terms of the aforesaid representation, the respondent No.1 passed an order on 15.5.2015 stating that the Government was of the opinion that the said application did not indicate existence of any industrial dispute and accordingly rejected the said application. After the said order dated 15.5.2015 was brought to the notice of the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Manipur, the learned Presiding Officer, by another order dated 06.06.2015, again allowed the parties to approach the State Government for submitting a fresh application indicating the points of disputes to be decided by the Industrial Tribunal. Accordingly, the representatives of the petitioner association again submitted a representation to the respondent No.1 on 4.8.2015 for formulating the points of disputes for determination by the Industrial Tribunal in terms of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However, the office of the respondent No.1 issued an order on 17.12.2015 by which it was held that there is no liability or dues payable to the retired/retrenched employees of the Manipur Spinning Mills Corporation Ltd. and accordingly, dismissed the said representation dated 4.8.2015. Thereafter, the representatives of the petitioner association again approached the respondent No.1 reiterating their grievances as already raised in their original representation dated 05.06.2008 and to refer the said disputes to the Industrial Tribunal. However, the office of respondent No.1 in response wrote to the office of the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Manipur stating that there is no due or liability payable to the former employees/workers of the erstwhile Manipur Spinning Mills Corporation Ltd and relevant APRs for payment of V.D.A and retirement benefits had been submitted to the High Court and in view of the above, no additional documents were available for making fresh reference to the Industrial Tribunal vide letter dated 23.5.2016. 6. In view of the above, it seems there was no progress before the Industrial Tribunal, Manipur. Ms. 6. In view of the above, it seems there was no progress before the Industrial Tribunal, Manipur. Ms. Vidhyalaxmi submits that the action of the respondent No.1 in rejecting the applications of the petitioner association for referring the specific disputes raised by the employees of the erstwhile Manipur Spinning Mills Corporation Ltd. has resulted in the non-proceeding of the Industrial Tribunal No.1 of 2011. Ms. Vidhyalaxmi submits that specific disputes had been raised by the association as mentioned in their representation dated 05.06.2008 and accordingly, the authorities are bound to refer the said disputes as required under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and also in terms of the order passed by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in W.P(C) No. 644 of 2005. Mr. Nepolean, Ld. Government Advocate, however, submits that the disputes raised by the petitioner association have to be with reference to the issues raised in W.P(C) No.644 of 2005 as mentioned in para No.9 of the judgment. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the materials on record, this Court finds that the respondent No.1 had made a reference to the Industrial Tribunal, Manipur vide letter dated 12.02.2010 on the basis of the application filed by the petitioner association on 05.06.2008. However, the said letter of reference dated 12.02.2010 did not specify the specific disputes/issues raised by the petitioner association in their representation dated 05.06.2008 as contained in para No.2 thereof, which have been reproduced above. Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 requires that where the appropriate Government is of the opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, it may at any time by order in writing- (a) Refer the dispute to a Board for promoting a settlement thereof; or (b) Refer any matter appearing to be connected with or relevant to the dispute to a Court for inquiry; or (c) Refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with, or relevant to, the dispute, if it relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule, to a Labour Court for adjudication; or (d) Refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with, or relevant to, the dispute, whether it relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule or the Third Schedule to a Tribunal for adjudication. 8. 8. This Court is of the view that once the respondent No.1 had referred the disputes in their letter dated 12.02.2010, on the basis of the application of the petitioner association dated 05.06.2008, though the specific issues raised in the said representation dated 05.06.2008 were not mentioned clearly in the said letter of reference dated 12.02.2010, it can be presumed that the respondent No.1 authority had in mind these specific points raised by the petitioner association in their application dated 05.06.2008 as reproduced above. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the State respondents cannot now resile from this stand and take a different view as reflected in their orders dated 15.5.2015, 17.12.2015 and 13.5.2016 to the effect that there is no dispute to be referred to, and to that extent, these letters cannot be sustained. The fact that there is a dispute between the members of the association and the employer/management is clearly reflected in the order dated 26.11.2007 passed by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in W.P(C) No.644 of 2005 because of which the respondent No.1 made the reference by letter dated 12.02.2010 on the basis of the demand raised by the petitioner Association on 05.06.2008. Though the said specific issues raised by the petitioner association were not specifically mentioned in the letter of reference dated 12.02.2010, it will be deemed that the said letter made a reference in respect of the specific issues raised in the representation dated 05.06.2008, as the said reference letter dated 12.02.2010 specifically mentioned the representation dated 05.06.2008. It is to be noted that the stand of the Respondent No.1 in their later communications dated 15.05.2015, 17.12.2015 and 13.05.2015 cannot be sustained as the petitioner Association have denied that the members of the association have received their retirement dues and hence, disputes still exist. Merely because the Respondent No.1 asserts subsequently that there is no dispute, it cannot be said that there is no dispute between the members of the petitioner association and the employer. 9. Merely because the Respondent No.1 asserts subsequently that there is no dispute, it cannot be said that there is no dispute between the members of the petitioner association and the employer. 9. In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed and disposed of with the observation that the letter dated 12.02.2010 written by the respondent No.1 to the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Manipur referring the application of the petitioner association dated 05.06.2008 has to be treated as a reference made under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in respect of the 5(five) disputes specifically raised and mentioned by the petitioner association in their representation dated 05.06.2008 and the aforesaid 5(five) issues/disputes raised would be deemed to be points of reference as contemplated under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Accordingly, to that extent, the orders dated 15.5.2015, 17.12.2015 and 23.5.2016 are interfered with as not sustainable and declared invalid. Considering the facts of the case and also considering that the matter is pending for a long time after the disputes were raised by the members of the petitioner association since 2008, this Court is of the view that there is no need to direct the Respondent No.1 now to make any fresh reference as observed by the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Manipur as it will be deemed that the reference has been already made by the respondent No.1 vide letter dated 12.02.2010 as required under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 relating to the 5 (five) specific issues and points of disputes raised by the petitioner association in their representation dated 05.06.2008. In other words, the aforesaid five points of disputes raised by the petitioner association in their representation dated 05.06.2008 shall be deemed to be the points of reference made by the respondent No.1 for adjudication by the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Manipur as required under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 10. Ms. Vidhyalaxmi, Ld. Counsel for the petitioners further submits that Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 requires that when an order is made referring an industrial dispute to the tribunal, it shall specify the period within which the tribunal is to submit its award and when it relates to an individual workman it shall not exceed three months. Counsel for the petitioners further submits that Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 requires that when an order is made referring an industrial dispute to the tribunal, it shall specify the period within which the tribunal is to submit its award and when it relates to an individual workman it shall not exceed three months. In the present case, it has been found that the reference letter dated 12.02.2010 does not indicate any specific period for submission of award by the Industrial Tribunal, Manipur. This Court is of the view that instead of referring the matter to the respondent No.1 to specify the period, this Court itself would fix the period of making award by the Industrial Tribunal, Manipur within a period of six months, considering the fact that the matter has been pending since 2011. 11. The Industrial Tribunal, Manipur is accordingly directed to proceed with the Industrial Dispute No. 1 of 2011 and adjudicate the disputes with reference to the 5 (five) issues raised by the petitioner 2 of their representation dated 05.06.2008 and submit the award within 6 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 12. With the above observation and direction, this writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above.