JUDGMENT Shekher Dhawan, J. - In all the above mentioned 09 writ petitions and 04 revision petitions, the matter in controversy involved is the same, therefore, by this common judgment, all these writ petitions are taken up together for disposal. For facility of reference, facts are being taken from CWP No.20344 of 2017- Vaish College of Engineering, Rohtak vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak and another. 2. Present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing impugned award dated 27.02.2017 (Annexure P/14) passed by learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak (for short, "learned Tribunal") whereby allowing the claim petition of workman-Ravi Sharma (respondent No.2 herein), he was directed to be reinstated with continuity of service, full back wages and all other consequential benefits. 3. The matter in controversy revolves around termination of services of respondent No.2-workman, who was appointed as a Lab Assistant with the petitioner-Vaish College of Engineering, Rohtak (for short, "the petitioner-College") on 19.05.2008 on adhoc basis and served the petitioner-College till 08.05.2015 when his services were terminated and learned Tribunal passed the impugned award. 4. Facts relevant for the purpose of decision of this writ petition; that the petitioner-College had raised an industrial dispute on the point - "Whether the termination of services of the workman - Ravi Sharma is justified or not? If not, what relief he is entitled to? 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that learned Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the industrial dispute as per the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in T.M.A Pai Foundation & others Vs. State of Karnataka & others , (2003) 2 SCT 385 , all the disputes except for payment of gratuity matter are to be referred to the Educational Tribunal. Therefore, the present writ petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned award is liable to be set-aside. Learned counsel for the revisionist/petitioner-College also contended that the revision petitions have been filed by the petitionerCollege challenging the orders passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rohtak, whereby arrears of back wages were granted to the workmen in execution of Award passed by Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak. Learned counsel for the revisionist/petitioner-College also contended that the revision petitions have been filed by the petitionerCollege challenging the orders passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rohtak, whereby arrears of back wages were granted to the workmen in execution of Award passed by Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak. In all these revision petitions, almost identical plea was taken that the matter in controversy is required to be decided by the Educational Tribunal and there was no justification for the Labour Court to decide the matter. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2- workman contended that learned Tribunal has rightly decided the controversy in favour of the workman and the award impugned in the writ petition deserves to be upheld by this Hon'ble Court. 7. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and appraisal of the record as also the view taken by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment in T.M.A. Pai Foundation's case, this Court is of the considered view that after the Educational Tribunal coming into force, all disputes except gratuity matters are to be referred to it (Educational Tribunal). Similar view was taken by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Suman Kajla Vs. State of Haryana and Others , (2007) 5 SLR 329 ; and Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in Dr. Mukul Gupta Vs. Industrial Finance Corporation of India Limited and Others , (2015) 4 SCT 380; and Rashmi Arora Vs. DAV College Managing Committee and Others , (2017) 2 SCT 615. 8. Learned Tribunal has erred in deciding the industrial disputes and allowing reinstatement to the workmen with continuity of service, full back wages and all other consequential benefits. In fact, as per view taken by Hon'ble Apex Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation's case, the Tribunal should have returned the reference unanswered with liberty to the workmen to avail the remedy of filing appeal before the Educational Tribunal. 9. Resultantly, the present writ petitions as well as the revision petitions are accepted and the impugned awards/orders are set aside. The workmen may avail their remedy of filing appeal before the Educational Tribunal. In case there is any dispute regarding grant of gratuity, the workmen will be well within their rights to challenge the same before appropriate authority. 9. Resultantly, the present writ petitions as well as the revision petitions are accepted and the impugned awards/orders are set aside. The workmen may avail their remedy of filing appeal before the Educational Tribunal. In case there is any dispute regarding grant of gratuity, the workmen will be well within their rights to challenge the same before appropriate authority. The authorities concerned under the Act are requested to consider the delay application, if any sympathetically and entertain the claim of the workmen. Even the question of res-judicata shall not arise in view of this later development. 10. All the 09 writ petitions and 04 revision petitions stand disposed of in the above terms.