ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. Under clause (d) of sub-Sections (1) and (2-4) of Section of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi made a reference to the Industrial Tribunal, Patna in following terms: "Whether the claim of Shri Mintu Kumar that he was engaged from the year 1993 till September 2001 as Sub staff on regular basis by the management of Punjab National Bank, Patna is correct" If so, whether the motion of the management in terminating him from service is legal and justified and to what relief Sri Mintu Kumar is entitled? " 3. After considering the pleadings and the terms of reference, following points were framed for consideration by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patna: "i) Whether the dispute raised is an individual dispute as defined u/s 2(K) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? ii) Whether the claim of Shri Mintu Kumar that he was engaged from the year 1993 to September 2001 as a sub staff on regular basis by the management of Punjab National Bank is correct? Whether motion of the management in terminating him from service is legal and justified? To what relief Shri Mintu Kumar is entitled? 4. After considering the case, the Industrial Tribunal observed as under: ""Here in this once I have discussed and found in the proceeding paragraphs that Mintu Kumar was engaged by the management as a sub staff on regular basis from 1998 to 2001 i.e. for more than three years. Under the circumstances it can safely be inferred that the bank needed the services of Mintu Kumar and utilized his services for more than three years. Under such circumstances the question whether Mintu Kumar was appointed regularly or irregularly become industrial dispute. Under the circumstances after utilising the services of Mintu Kumar for more than 240 days in a year for more than three years the motion of the management in terminating his services that too without compliance of the provision under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 cannot be held justified and legal. This point is accordingly decided" 5. Under the circumstances after utilising the services of Mintu Kumar for more than 240 days in a year for more than three years the motion of the management in terminating his services that too without compliance of the provision under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 cannot be held justified and legal. This point is accordingly decided" 5. The Tribunal finally held that the claimant was entitled to be regularized in service as IVth grade employee in Punjab National Bank with all the benefits and his services as IVth grade employee in Punjab National Bank be regularized w.e.f. from 1 st January 1999 with all benefits including pay etc., which a regular IVth grade employee in that Bank was entitled to minus the amount already paid to him for his services from 1 st January 1998 . 6. The aforesaid view was challenged by the respondent by filing Writ Petition being No.CWJC No.9373 of 2007 in the High Court of Judicature at Patna. A Single Judge of the High Court vide judgment and order dated 29.08.2012 affirmed the view taken by the Tribunal and dismissed the writ application. 7. The matter was carried further by the respondent by filing Letters Patent Appeal No.1339 of 2014, which was allowed by the Division Bench on 29.03.2018, which decision is presently under appeal. 8. According to the Division Bench, the issue of regularization was not within the scope and ambit of the terms of reference made to the Tribunal and, as such, the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal, as affirmed by the learned Single Judge, was completely incorrect and untenable. In the result, the Division Bench set-aside the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal. 9. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and with their assistance have gone through the record. 10. The terms of reference clearly indicated that the claim of the appellant was that he was engaged in the service from the year 1993 till 2001 as Sub Staff on regular basis and in the context of such claim, relief was prayed for. The findings recorded by the Tribunal to the effect that the appellant was engaged by the Management of the Bank on regular basis from 1998 to 2001, i.e. for more than three years, was certainly in the context of the claim as raised by the appellant. The findings recorded by the Tribunal to the effect that the appellant was engaged by the Management of the Bank on regular basis from 1998 to 2001, i.e. for more than three years, was certainly in the context of the claim as raised by the appellant. In the totality of the circumstances it could not therefore be held that the regularization or the fact that the appellant was entitled to be accommodated on regular basis was not an issue before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, in our considered view, was right and justified in arriving at said conclusion. 11. According to us, the Division Bench ought not to have interfered in the matter and set-aside the conclusions drawn by the Tribunal which were affirmed by the Single Judge of the High Court. 12. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set-aside the view taken by the Division Bench and restore the award passed by the Tribunal, as affirmed by the Single Judge of the High Court. 13. The civil appeal stands allowed, in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs.