ORDER : Sahidullah Munshi, J. This writ petition is directed against the award dated 18th November, 2008 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Andaman and Nicobar Islands in I.D. Case No.3 of 2001. 2. The industrial dispute case was referred by the Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor, Andaman and Nicobar Islands by notification dated 24/25th January, 2001. The award was passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Andaman and Nicobar Islands on consideration of the statements of demand filed by the General Secretary, Plantation Crops Workers Union, Port Blair. The statements of demand contained, inter alia, the following grounds. (1) That eight workers were terminated from their services without notice. (2) The respondent no.2, Shri Ravi Babu, Junior Clerk, had to be suspended as per the provisions of SR/FR due to completion of 48 hours in police custody. (3) No termination order was given to any one of the eight workers. (4) The Director, C.A.R.I had not paid the wages of said workers for the month of 1st January, 2000 to 29th January, 2000. (5) No certified standing orders were being maintained and formulated by the said authority (CARI) for status and daily rated workers. (6) That although in the appointment order of the terminated workers, it was clearly stated after giving one month's notice, his/her service would be terminated, the same was not complied with by the authority (CARI). 3. On consideration of the above mentioned grounds and the reference made by the Lieutenant Governor, the award was passed by the learned Labour Court. The said award has been challenged by the writ petitioners; namely, Central Agricultural Research Institute and its Administrative Officer. In the writ petition, it has been agitated by the petitioners that the award passed by the learned Labour Court is without jurisdiction inasmuch as the learned Labour Court did not consider the legal position that Central Agricultural Research Institute, being a Central Government Organization, the Lieutenant Governor could not have the authority to make the reference and further that the petitioner No.1 is not the industry. Therefore the award, which has been passed, cannot be sustained in law inasmuch as the reference itself is without jurisdiction and not in conformity with the law under the Industrial Disputes Act. 4. Mr. Md. Therefore the award, which has been passed, cannot be sustained in law inasmuch as the reference itself is without jurisdiction and not in conformity with the law under the Industrial Disputes Act. 4. Mr. Md. Tabraiz, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has argued that since the award is without jurisdiction even without going into the merits of the award, the same should be set aside. Number of occasions, this matter was taken up by this Court but could not be finally disposed of only on the ground that whether or not the reference was the valid reference on the basis of which the learned Labour Court could have occasion to decide the matter. The question was raised by Mr. Tabraiz that the Central Agricultural Research Institute is not an industry and that the respondent nos.2 to 9 are not its workmen. Thus, on consideration of this submission, by an order dated 13th March, 2012, this Court adjourned the matter. However, while this order was passed, it was brought to the notice of the Court that the Division Bench in Circuit dealt with the identical issue and held that such a reference is very well be maintained in accordance with law and, therefore, the award could not be sustained. But since it was submitted at the bar that the said decision of the Division Bench was challenged before the Apex Court and since the same was pending, this Court could not deal with the issue finally. 5. In support of his submission, Mr. Tabraiz has argued before this Court that the award could not be sustained even only on ground of jurisdictional error which according to Mr. Tabraiz, learned Labour Court had omitted to consider. In the ground of the writ petition, however, the petitioners have also raised the question that mere acquittal of the respondent from the criminal proceedings would not have absolved the respondent from the disciplinary action. According to Mr.Tabraiz, the learned Labour Court has failed to take note of such legal position. 6. However, while making submission on behalf of the petitioners, Mr.Tabraiz has fairly submitted that his clients give much stress on the question of law regarding maintainability of the reference than those of the other grounds submitted before the learned Labour Court while filing counter objection. 7. 6. However, while making submission on behalf of the petitioners, Mr.Tabraiz has fairly submitted that his clients give much stress on the question of law regarding maintainability of the reference than those of the other grounds submitted before the learned Labour Court while filing counter objection. 7. Since the main question before this Court as raised by Mr.Tabraiz regarding maintainability of the reference, I wish to deal with the same first. Mr.Tabraiz in support of his submission has relied on the notification being CLC's Instruction No.4/85 dated 14th May, 1985 issued by the Shri S.K.Das, Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (C). Considering such notification, he submits that in view of the said notification, all officers were requested to treat the Indian Council of Agricultural Research Institute and its allied institutions in Central Sphere and enforce the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Contract Labour (R&A) Act, 1970 etc and entertain disputes under the Industrial Disputes Act. 8. Mr. Tabraiz in support of his submission has relied on the notification being CLC's Instruction No. 4/85 dated 14th May, 1985 issued by the Shri S.K. Das, Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (C). Considering such notification, he submits that in view of the said notification, all officers were requested to treat the Indian Council of Agricultural Research Institute and its allied institutions in Central Sphere and enforce the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Contract Labour (R & A) Act, 1970 etc and entertain disputes under the Industrial Disputes Act. 9. According to him, the Division Bench which decided the issues regarding the maintainability of a reference at the instance of the Lieutenant Governor in the case of Central Agricultural Research Institute and others v. the Presiding Officer, Labour Court and others, has not considered the aforementioned notification Therefore, according to Mr.Tabraiz, the said decision in the said case of Central Agricultural Research Institute and others (supra) has no binding effect in the present case. 10. In support of his submission with regard to the aforesaid Division Bench judgment passed on 21st August, 2000, Mr.Tabraiz submits that the issue has not been decided finally by the Apex Court in the Special Leave Petition arose from the said Division Bench judgment. Mr.Tabraiz has relied on a judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Indian Council of Agricultural Research v. Duryodhan Hirman Ingole reported in 2010 (11) LAWS(Bombay) 73. Mr.Tabraiz has relied on a judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Indian Council of Agricultural Research v. Duryodhan Hirman Ingole reported in 2010 (11) LAWS(Bombay) 73. He has drawn attention of this Court to paragraph nos.7 and 9 of the said judgment wherein it has been held that ICAR is neither a State public sector undertaking nor an autonomous body owned or conducted by the State Government. In that judgment it has been mentioned that a view cannot be taken that State Government is the appropriate government in relation to any industrial dispute concerning the ICAR. However on perusal of paragraph 9 of the said judgment, it appears that the said Court held that section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act empowers the appropriate Government to refer a dispute to appropriate authority such as Boards, Courts or Tribunal where it is of the opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended. According to the said judgment, the appropriate Government must be held to be the Central Government. In the instant case appropriate government is the Lieutenant Governor of an Union Territory (UT). 11. The sum and substance of the Bombay High Court is whether section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act is to be invoked or not. This has to be decided on a fact situation of a particular case. The fact situation of the Bombay High Court's decision is not similar with the present case. If it is a industrial dispute, it must be held that section 10 has to be made applicable. 12. Mr.Tabraiz also relied on a judgment reported in (1984) 2 SCC 141 to show that the characteristic of ICAR. In the said judgment it has been held that ICAR is the State within the meaning of Article 12. Although in the said judgment, the characteristic of the ICAR has been described in detail but the ratio of the judgment is whether a writ is maintainable against the ICAR or not. The issues in the said judgment have no relevance in the present case. 13. On behalf of the workers/respondents a detailed affidavit-in-opposition has been filed dealing with all questions raised in the writ petition. The issues in the said judgment have no relevance in the present case. 13. On behalf of the workers/respondents a detailed affidavit-in-opposition has been filed dealing with all questions raised in the writ petition. Ms.S.Ganguly, learned counsel for the workers/respondents submits that the reference was rightly made by the Lieutenant Governor being the one of the UT and it is competent enough to make reference and on such reference, the award which has been passed by the learned Labour Court is to be sustained. According to her, the issue which has been raised by Mr.Tabriaz has already been answered by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court on 21st August, 2000 in the case of the Central Agricultural Research Institute and Others v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court. The decision was challenged by the Central Agricultural Research and others in Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Apex Court. Leave was granted and it was finally disposed of by an order dated 24th October, 2016. The Hon'ble Apex Court passed the following order which is set out below. "1. The appellants approached this Court challenging the Award passed by the Labour Court and as confirmed by the High Court. 2. Taking note of the fact that the appellants have paid wages in terms of the Section 17 B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for quite long, a suggestion was made as to whether the appellants would be interested to have a one-time settlement, leaving the question of law, as to whether the Appellant No.1 is an industry or not, open. 3. Apropos the suggestion, the appellants have now framed a Scheme, a copy of which has been produced before this Court along with additional affidavit. 4. The learned counsel for contesting respondents submits that the scheme as such is not acceptable to the workers. Be that as it may, now that the appellants have framed a Scheme with regard to the settlement of grievance of the party-respondents, we are of the view that these appeals should be disposed of directing the appellants to implement the Scheme, in substitution of the award passed by the Labour Court. Ordered accordingly. 5. However, we make it clear that in case the party-respondents have any surviving grievance, it will be open to them to make a representation before appellant No.1 or pursue the same in appropriate proceedings. 6. Ordered accordingly. 5. However, we make it clear that in case the party-respondents have any surviving grievance, it will be open to them to make a representation before appellant No.1 or pursue the same in appropriate proceedings. 6. In view of the ensuing Diwali Festival, we direct the appellants to disburse the benefits in terms of the Scheme on or before 29th October, 2016. 7. The appeals are disposed of." 14. Ms.Ganguly has drawn attention of this Court and submitted that Mr.Tabraiz is not correct that the said notification dated 14th May, 1985, has not been dealt with by the Division Bench in its judgment dated 21st August, 2000. She submits that page 21 of the said judgment is relevant for the purpose where the Hon'ble Court has elaborately discussed about the said notification dated 14.05.1985. Therefore, the submission of Mr.Tabraiz on this ground fails. 15. It would be pertinent to note that although a detailed affidavit-in-opposition has been used by the workers/respondents, but no reply thereto has been filed despite liberty given to the writ petitioners. Perhaps for this reasons, Mr.Md.Tabraiz at the out set submitted that he is much interested to argue on the question of jurisdiction but not on merits. 16. Nothing further submitted by Mr.Tabriaz that in terms of the Apex Court's order, they have taken any initiative or anything pending in any court. Therefore, the issue decided by the Hon'ble Division Bench on 21st August, 2000 in MAT No.1535 of 2000, MAT No1536 of 2000, MAT No.1537 of 2000 has reached its finality. The issues decided by the said Division Bench in the aforesaid three mandamus appeals are binding on this Court. In short, the said judgment is discussed below. 17. The Central Agricultural Research Institute and others, as appellants, filed the above mentioned three appeals challenging the award passed by the learned Labour Court and question was raised by the appellants that the reference was not in accordance with law and therefore, the award passed in the given case was challenged by filing writ petitions. In the said award, the learned Labour Court held that "that the action of the management or the Central Agricultural Research Institute, Port Blair in terminating the service of the Shri Ravi Babu and daily rated labourers is illegal and justified. In the said award, the learned Labour Court held that "that the action of the management or the Central Agricultural Research Institute, Port Blair in terminating the service of the Shri Ravi Babu and daily rated labourers is illegal and justified. The officer is entitled to initiate any legal capacity with effect from the date of publication of the award in the official gazette. He is not entitled to get any back wages in the circumstances of the case." 18. In dealing with such award, the Division Bench decided the issue involved in that writ petition and answered in the affirmative to the effect that the reference was very much maintainable and the award was justified and held to be good in law. 19. The relevant portion of the said judgment gives answer to the question raised by Mr.Tabraiz may be set out. "However, it appears that a learned Judge by a judgment dated 3.7.1991 in C.O.No.13081(W) of 1987 upon interpretation of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act and Industrial Dispute (Central Rules(and in particular Rule 2(1) thereof held that the reference to the Central Government or the Government of India shall be construed as a reference to the Administrator of the territory and reference to the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) shall be construed as reference to the appropriate authority appointed by the Administrator of the territory and held that reference under section 10 of the said Act by the Lt. Governor in respect of the appellant was a valid reference." 20. The said judgment has also held "it will therefore be preposterous to suggest that only because reference has been made by the Lt. Governor, the same is not valid one". 21. On the question of binding precedent, since the aforesaid decision has come out from a Division Bench of this Court, I have no hesitation to hold the same is binding on me. The ratio decided in the judgment squarely applies in the present case particularly when the issues in the judgment of the Division Bench has not been held to be bad by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 22. The ratio decided in the judgment squarely applies in the present case particularly when the issues in the judgment of the Division Bench has not been held to be bad by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 22. Although Mr.Tabraiz has confined his argument on the question of maintainability of the reference and the usurpation of the jurisdiction by the Labour Court but on consideration of the award it does not appear that even on merit, Labour Court has gone wrong anywhere which could warrant interference of this Court in this writ petition. 23. Admittedly, there is no provision for filing any appeal to challenge the order passed by the Labour Court and there is no appellate authority set up by the statute. This is only by way of judicial review, this Court can justify the authenticity of the finding of the learned Labour Court or as to whether the learned Court's finding is perverse or is not based on material on record. Nothing of these sorts are available in the judgment and award of the learned Labour Court. 24. I have also perused the evidence on record. The workers deposed before the learned Labour Court. Cross examination was also made by the learned counsel for the "CARI". But nothing could adversely being taken out from the deposition of the PWs. Therefore, the said evidence of the PWs does not give rise any situation, which can show that they have made any false statements before the learned Labour Court or that there is any such element for which their evidence can be doubted. 25. On the contrary on perusal of the cross examination of the evidence of OPWs, it appears that the deponent OPW-1 Abhishek Srivastava could not say that before termination of the workers, any disciplinary proceeding was contemplated. It has also been stated that he had no personal knowledge as to what happened in the year 2000 with regard to the workers are concerned. Therefore, on perusal of the detailed award passed by the learned Labour Court, it does not appear that the learned Labour Court has in any manner overlooked the evidence on record so that the award can be termed as perverse one. 26. Therefore, on perusal of the detailed award passed by the learned Labour Court, it does not appear that the learned Labour Court has in any manner overlooked the evidence on record so that the award can be termed as perverse one. 26. In view of the discussion above, I am of the considered view that the judgment and award passed by the learned Labour Court has rightly passed the Award and no ground has been made out by the petitioners to interfere with the same. The said order is upheld and affirmed. The writ petition is dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.