JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the parties. 2. No one turns up on behalf of the respondent in-spite of repeated calls. Hence, this writ petition is heard ex-parte against the respondent. 3. The writ petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for setting aside of the Award dated 20.04.2017 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Govt., Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad in Reference Case No.39 of 2013, whereby and where under, the Industrial Tribunal directed the petitioner- Management of Bokaro Steel Plant to pay 20% extra allowance to all the Bokaro General Hospital Staff as per list provided by the Union from the time the scheme was introduced including arrear soon after the publication of the Award. 4. The brief facts of the case are that by order no. L-29011/42/2013/IR (M) dated 26.08.2013, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has in exercise of the power conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to the Tribunal. “Whether the action of the management of Bokaro Steel Plant SAIL in not paying 20% special Allowance to the workers, working in Bokaro General Hospital is legal and justified? What relief the workmen are entitled to?” Admittedly, no list of workmen was annexed with the reference notification. 5. Before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, the respondent filed written statement inter alia contending that list of 218 employees whose names, ST number, grade, CLS and designation has been mentioned as Annexure of the impugned award are employees of the Bokaro Steel Plant working in Bokaro General Hospital. They are either nursing or paramedical staff and it is contended that they are governed by the service rules of Bokaro Steel Plant. 6. Consequent upon the preliminary issue being raised before the Industrial Tribunal by the petitioner-Management, that the dispute referred for adjudication vide the said notification dated 26.08.2013 cannot proceed in absence of list of workmen concerned in whose respect the reference is to be answered on behalf of the respondent-workmen. The list of 218 employees were filed and the same has been taken on record vide order dated 07.08.2014 and consequent upon such list of employees being taken on record, the Management was called to file the written statement. 7. The list of 218 employees were filed and the same has been taken on record vide order dated 07.08.2014 and consequent upon such list of employees being taken on record, the Management was called to file the written statement. 7. The petitioner-Management in its earlier journey through W.P. (L) No. 4369 of 2015 challenged the said order dated 07.08.2014 of the Industrial Tribunal by which the list of the said 218 employees whose detail particulars has been annexed in the impugned award under the heading Annexure but a coordinate Bench of this Court disposed of the said writ petition being of the opinion that the list submitted on behalf of the workmen cannot be treated as final. The order dated 07.08.2014 only indicates that the list of workmen submitted by the workers-union has been taken on record and the apprehension of the petitioner that the said list has been accepted is misconceived. It has further been contended by the respondent-workmen in their written statement that as per the working condition of 218 employees whose list is mentioned under the heading Annexure in the impugned award, they used to work at par with the other similarly placed employees who are governed by the service rules and working in the Sales Accounts (Invoice Group) and EDP Centre of Bokaro Steel Plant and work for 48 hours in a week. They work in shifts and as the similarly placed employees who work in shifts for 48 hours in a week are paid 20% of the basic pay and D.A. as special allowance to compensate for the extension/change in working hours from a non-executive employees of Bokaro Steel Plant who work for 36 hours in a week, hence, the 218 workmen are entitled to get incentive and reward in addition to the aforesaid allowance of 20% of basic pay and D.A. The respondent-workmen further contended that Bokaro Steel Plant has frozen the special allowance which is paid to the employees working in Sales Accounts (Invoice Group) and EDP Centre of Bokaro Steel Plant and who are governed by the service rules by issuing an inter-office correspondence dated 20.12.1991 resulting in an industrial dispute between the Management of Bokaro Steel Plant and these employees. The dispute was adjudicated by the Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi in Reference Case No.4 of 1998. The Industrial Tribunal passed the award in favour of the affected employees. The dispute was adjudicated by the Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi in Reference Case No.4 of 1998. The Industrial Tribunal passed the award in favour of the affected employees. The award stated to freeze 20% special allowance to the workmen of the Sales Accounts (Invoice Group) of Bokaro Steel Plant who work beyond working period by the Management is not proper. The respondent further contended that the nursing and paramedical staff of Bokaro General Hospital who are 218 in number as mentioned in the impugned award are deprived of their genuine rights and are exploited through unfair labour practice by the Management company in violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India and all urge upon the Industrial Tribunal to answer the reference in the affirmative and direct the Management of Bokaro Steel Plant to pay special allowance of 20% of the basic pay and D.A. to the said 218 numbers of nursing and paramedical staff of Bokaro General Hospital who are governed by the service rules as par with similarly placed workmen in Sales Accounts (Invoice Group) and EDP Centre from their date of joining. 8. Before the Industrial Tribunal, the petitioner-Management also filed written statement. In its written statement, the petitioner-Management challenged the maintainability of the reference. The petitioner-Management contended that the workmen of Bokaro Steel Plant who have been working for 48 hours in a week are entitled to get incentive and reward of 50%. The Management never changed the service condition of the workmen who are working in Bokaro General Hospital either in the service rules or in standing order as such and hence, there has not been any violation of Section 9A of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The Management admitted that the employees working in Bokaro General Hospital have been performing 48 hours duty in a week and 8 hours per shift since the date of their joining in Bokaro General Hospital. The workmen working in Bokaro General Hospital are also getting enhanced incentive and reward of 50% but the workmen who are working less than 48 hours in a week are getting 36% of the incentive and reward. The Management further contended that the employees of Bokaro General Hospital whose service are governed by the provision of service rules are enjoying all the facilities including leave applicable as per the service rules. The Management further contended that the employees of Bokaro General Hospital whose service are governed by the provision of service rules are enjoying all the facilities including leave applicable as per the service rules. Though the Management contended that the demand made by the respondent-union for payment of 20% of the special allowance to the workmen working in Bokaro General Hospital is neither legal nor justified but has not assigned any reason as to why it is not legal or why it is not justified. 9. The Industrial Tribunal in the impugned award took note of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of National Engineering Industries Ltd. vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2000) 1 SCC 371 wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that the Industrial Tribunal being a creation of statute cannot go into the question of validity of the reference. The Industrial Tribunal also considered that though respondent-union submitted the list of 218 nursing and paramedical staff of Bokaro General Hospital but the Management did not deny the same nor said that any particular workmen- whose names appears in the list of the said 218 persons; is a fake one or does not belong to the category of workmen in question that is medical staff and in the reference medical staff was mentioned and the tribunal then went on to answer reference in respect of 218 medical staffs only whose list has been mentioned under the heading ‘Annexure’ in the impugned award. The Industrial Tribunal equated the 218 nursing and paramedical staff of Bokaro General Hospital with the other technical staff of Bokaro Steel Plant receiving 20% extra wage from the date of introduction of the scheme by observing that the said nursing and paramedical staff of Bokaro General Hospital are looking after the health of all officers, workmen of Bokaro Steel Plant and they are also rendering emergency duty; if any accident in the factory occurs. The Industrial Tribunal also considered the admission made by the Management witnesses before it to the suggestion of the respondent-Union; by stating that ‘it is not a fact that workmen are not entitled to get 20% extra allowance’ in his cross-examination and on the basis of this admission in the evidence of the Management and also the admission that the concerned employees of this dispute are not getting 20% allowance like special/ machine allowance which is being paid to other employees in similar situation and answered the reference in affirmative and directed the Bokaro Steel Plant- Management to forthwith pay 20% extra allowance to all the Bokaro General Staff as per the list mentioned in the said award as Annexure from the time the scheme was introduced including arrear soon after the publication of the award. 10. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned award is bad in law and is liable to be set aside as the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the name of workmen was not incorporated/provided along with reference. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the order dated 21.09.2015 passed by a coordinate Bench in W.P. (L) No. 4369 of 2015. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the finding of the Industrial Tribunal in paragraph no.13 of the impugned award is perverse as the same is based on no evidence. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal failed to consider that the workmen has admitted during the course of their cross-examination that they have already received incentive and reward of 50%. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Industrial Tribunal failed to appreciate that there is no scheme in the said Bokaro Steel Plant for payment of 20% extra allowance. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned award as already indicated above be set aside. 11. Though no one turns up on behalf of the respondent but perusal of the record reveals that a counter affidavit has been filed in this writ petition by the respondent ;wherein it has been contended by the respondent that the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal is perfectly in terms of law without having any perversity. 11. Though no one turns up on behalf of the respondent but perusal of the record reveals that a counter affidavit has been filed in this writ petition by the respondent ;wherein it has been contended by the respondent that the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal is perfectly in terms of law without having any perversity. Hence, it is submitted that this writ petition being without any merit be dismissed. 12. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the evidence in the record, so far as the contention of the petitioner regarding illegality committed by the Industrial Tribunal by accepting the list of 218 nursing and paramedical staff of Bokaro General Hospital to be the ‘workers working in Bokaro General Hospital’ is concerned, as has already been mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs of this Judgment; it is a settled principle of law that the Industrial Tribunal cannot examine the validity of a reference. The Industrial Tribunal has no option but to answer the reference which is referred to it by the appropriate government in exercise of its power conferred under clause (d) of sub-section 1 and sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. Undisputedly, the reference does not contain the list of workers working in Bokaro General Hospital. This issue was raised as the preliminary objection before filing of the written statement by the petitioner-Management and upon such preliminary objection being raised by the petitioner-Management, the respondent-workmen submitted a list of 218 nursing and paramedical staff working in Bokaro General Hospital under the Bokaro Steel Plant SAIL to be the ‘workers working in Bokaro General Hospital’ as referred to in the reference in question. Thereafter, the petitioner-Management filed its written statement. By the time the petitioner-Management filed its written statement, it was knowing the list of 218 persons with their detail particulars as already mentioned in the impugned award and undisputedly the description provided in respect of each of the said 218 workmen is sufficient to identify each of them as inter alia apart from other descriptions, the description also contains the ST number of the workmen concerned which in unique to each of the employees but still the petitioner-Management did not dispute that anyone of the 218 workmen; is not ‘workers working in Bokaro General Hospital’ as mentioned in the reference. 13. 13. Under such circumstances, as in their written statement the petitioner-Management did not dispute the fact that 218 persons whose names has been mentioned under the heading Annexure of the impugned award are the ‘workers working in Bokaro General Hospital’ as mentioned in the reference, this Court does not find any illegality having been committed by the learned Industrial Tribunal in answering the reference by accepting the 218 workmen whose names have been mentioned in the impugned award to be the ‘workmen working in Bokaro General Hospital’ as mentioned in the reference. Hence, this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has no legs to stand and it is pertinent to mention here that the order dated 21.09.2015 passed by the coordinate Bench in W.P. (L) No. 4369 of 2015 no way aids the petitioner-Management as though it had the opportunity to challenge the identity of each of the said 218 workmen in its written statement but having not done so, the consequence is that the petitioner-Management has also accepted each of the said 218 workmen to be the ‘workers working in the Bokaro General Hospital’ as mentioned in the reference. 14. 14. So far as the contention of the petitioner that there is no scheme in SAIL- Bokaro Steel Plant for payment of 20% extra allowance is concerned, the same is out an out false contention of the petitioner- Management; as it is evident from Ext.W-6 which is the copy of the certified copy of the award passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi dated 29.08.2003 in Reference Case No. 4 of 1998, that in fact, there is an incentive scheme of 20% special allowance to the workmen of Bokaro Steel Plant and the said 20% special allowance was frozen in respect of the workmen of Sales Accounts Section (Invoice Group) and in respect of the same, the reference was made by the Government of Bihar in Department of Labour, Employment and Training and the same was answered by the Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi that the freeze of the admissible 20% of special allowance to the workmen of SAIL Accounts (Invoicing Group) of Bokaro Steel Plant for work beyond the working period by the Management was not proper and though there is a reference of the same in the written statement by the respondent-workmen filed before the Industrial Tribunal but in their written statement the petitioner-management neither challenged the existence or veracity of the same nor pleaded anything to suggest that the award has not been implemented by the petitioner-Management. 15. So far as the contention of the petitioner regarding the impugned award being bad in law and perverse is concerned, this Court after going through the materials in the record finds that 20% special allowance to the workmen working in Bokaro General Hospital is admissible to them because the parameter upon which such payment was made to the similarly paid workmen was that they were working for 48 hours in a week and working in shifts i.e. A, B and C and each shift consisting of 8 hours per day and they were also attending emergency duty in case of need like when the accident takes in the factory. As already indicated above, the Management has not assigned even a single reason as to why upon the admitted facts that the workmen working in Bokaro General Hospital were at par with at least the workmen working in Sales Account Section (Invoicing Group) and EDP Centre (Input/Output Section) of Bokaro Steel Plant; will not be entitled to the emoluments at par with the workmen working in Sales Account Section (Invoicing Group) and EDP Centre (Input/Output Section) of Bokaro Steel Plant. Moreover, as the witness of the Management has also admitted by way of denying the denial suggestion and as the double negative in the sentence makes the sentence positive that the workmen of Bokaro General Hospital are entitled to get 20% extra allowance, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal is perverse or being not in accordance with law. 16. In view of the discussions made above, this Court does not find any merit in this writ petition. 17. Accordingly, this writ petition being without any merit is dismissed ex-parte. 18. Let a copy of this Judgment along with the Lower Court Record be sent back to the learned Tribunal forthwith.