Ajit Singh; CJ.:-- 1. Mr. GN Sahewalla, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. BK Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Mr. M Haloi and Ms. B Das, learned counsel, for the respondent. 2. Heard on admission. 3. This intra court appeal is directed against the order dated 27.11.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge of this High Court, whereby he has allowed Respondent’s WP(C) No. 3654/2010 remanding the matter to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (in short “Tribunal’) for a fresh decision, after considering the entire evidence adduced by the parties. 4. The respondents and other workmen have been claiming themselves to be the workmen of the appellants since ages. In the year 1995, the respondents and other workmen raised demand before the Regional Labour Commissioner to initiate conciliation proceedings for regularization of their services with the appellants. The appellants did not agree with their demand on the ground that the workmen were working under the Contractor as contract labours. Considering the allegations and counter allegations, the Regional Labour Commissioner submitted a failure report on 22.9.1995. Thereafter, the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, vide notification dated 21.11.1996, issued under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the dispute for adjudication before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide Award dated 30.11.2000 directed the appellants to regularize the services of workmen. Aggrieved, the appellants challenged the Award in WP(C) No. 8368/2001 on the ground that workmen were engaged by the contractor and not by it. This Court vide judgment and order dated 21.5.2004 struck off six workmen from the reference as they were not engaged by the appellants and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration after recording additional evidence that may be adduced by the parties. After remand, the Tribunal vide Award dated 15.5.2009 held that the workmen were not entitled for regularization of their services since they failed to establish any employer-employee relationship with the appellants. The workmen challenged the Award dated 15.5.2009 by filing WP(C) No. 3654/2010 on the ground that it was passed only on consideration of additional evidence adduced by the parties and not on the entire evidence. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order has agreed with the workmen and after setting aside the Award dated 15.5.2009 has remanded the matter to the Tribunal for deciding the same afresh, after considering the entire evidence on record. 5. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order has agreed with the workmen and after setting aside the Award dated 15.5.2009 has remanded the matter to the Tribunal for deciding the same afresh, after considering the entire evidence on record. 5. We have perused the record and also heard the learned counsel for the parties. The workmen are contesting for regularization of their services since 1995. In the earlier round of litigation, there was nothing to show that the High Court directed the Tribunal to decide the matter afresh only on the basis of additional evidence. The Tribunal, therefore, instead of deciding the matter only on the basis of additional evidence, ought to have decided the matter on the basis of entire evidence. In the result, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. Even otherwise also no prejudice is likely to be caused to the appellants. We, however, make it clear that the Tribunal will be at liberty to decide the matter on its own merit without being influenced by any observation made by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order dated 27.11.2014. The appeal has no merit and is accordingly dismissed summarily.