JUDGMENT : PANKAJ BHATIA, J. 1. Heard Ms. Deepti Gupta, Sri Rakesh Devi Prasad Kumar, Ms. Pragati Mehrotra, Ms. Manish Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Kirti Dhar Tripathi, who appears for the respondent nos. 3, 5 and 6, Sri Amit Jaiswal, who appears for the respondent nos. 2 and 4 perused the material available on record. 2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 26.09.2023 passed by the Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T., whereby the reference made has been rejected on the ground that the claim made by the petitioner was in excess of the reference order. 3. The facts leading to the present petition in brief are that the petitioner claims to be an employee of the respondent no. 3 and on account of some order being passed redesigning the job description of the petitioner, she agitated the same and based upon her application, a reference was drawn and the matter was referred to the C.G.I.T. for adjudication vide order dated 20.02.2021. The reference order is quoted herein below: "1. Whether the action of the management of Axis Securities Ltd., to re-design the job description of the employee Ms. Renu Sharma due to closing of retail asset product is illegal and unjustified in eye of law or not? 2. If yes, as to what relief the concerned workmen is entitled to." During the pendency of the reference, a fresh order came to be passed whereby the petitioner was issued a termination letter on 02.03.2021, discharging her services with effect from 02.03.2021, the said order is on record as Annexure No. 15 to the writ petition. After passing of the said order, the petitioner appears to have filed an application under Section 33 A read with Section 2 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 stating that during the pendency of the proceedings an order adverse has been passed and as such, the same was also amenable to adjudication before the CGIT. It also bears from the record that an interim award came to be passed on 05.08.2022 accepting the version of the petitioner prima facie, and holding that the application/complaint under Section 33 A of the Act as filed by the petitioner was maintainable. An interim direction was also given to the respondent-Company to pay an amount of Rs.3000/- per month for alleged contravention of provisions of Section 33 A of the said Act. An interim direction was also given to the respondent-Company to pay an amount of Rs.3000/- per month for alleged contravention of provisions of Section 33 A of the said Act. The said interim award became final inter-se between the parties and none of them have challenged it before the CGIT. When the final matter was taken up for hearing, the CGIT did not notice the interim award dated 05.08.2022 although the same was on record before him and proceeded to pass the impugned order holding that the relief claimed by the petitioner with regard to her termination order dated 02.03.2021 is beyond the scope of original reference, as such, could not be adjudicated by the CGIT. 4. Challenging the said order, the counsel for the petitioner argues that in terms of Section 2 A and Section 33 A of the Act, the petitioner was well within her rights to agitate the issue with regard to termination before the CGIT as the same has passed during the pendency of the proceedings and contrary to the prescription contained under Section 33 A of the Act. He next argues that in any event, the issue with regard to the maintainability of the application under Section 33 A of the Act has attained finality in terms of the award dated 5.08.2022 and as such, the Tribunal could not have passed the order as has been done by impugned order dated 26.09.2023. He further argues that while passing the award dated 5.08.2022, the parties were wrongly described and on account of said error, the respondents have not complied with the award and have not been paid the amount of compensation as was determined. It is further prayed that the application filed by the petitioner for correcting the typographical errors, is still pending and has not been adjudicated. 5. The counsel for the respondent on the other hand makes a statement and accepts that in the interim award dated 05.08.2022, there were typographical errors in the award in so far as it related to the description of the opposite party and the name of the respondent was wrongly transcribed . He further states that irrespective of the typographical error, his client i.e. respondent no. 3 would pay the amount to the petitioner in terms of the interim award amounting to Rs.96,000/- within a period of one month from today. He further states that irrespective of the typographical error, his client i.e. respondent no. 3 would pay the amount to the petitioner in terms of the interim award amounting to Rs.96,000/- within a period of one month from today. He seriously disputes the other contention of the counsel for the petitioner and states that he may be granted time to file the counter affidavit. He further agitates that the petitioner is not a 'workmen' within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act. He further argues that the issue with regard to the illegal termination as claimed by the petitioner has attained finality with the interim order dated 05.08.2022 and only parent reference order as extracted above made on 15.02.2021 was to be decided by the Tribunal, which has been rightly rejected by the Tribunal. 6. Considering the submissions made at the Bar, the impugned order dismisses the application filed by the petitioner in respect of the termination order dated 02.03.2021 solely on the ground that the same is beyond the reference order dated 15.02.2021. The said issue can be decided solely based upon the interpretation of the interim award as well as the impugned order as no factual issues are involved, I am not incline to grant any time to file counter affidavit as prayed by the counsel for the respondent. The impugned order has disposed of the complaint in respect of the termination order solely on the ground that it is beyond the initial reference order dated 15.02.2021 is erroneous on the face of it as to the interim award dated 05.08.2022, the Tribunal had held that prima facie the application under Section 33A of the Act was maintainable and it was further directed that all the allegation made by the complainant would be appreciated at the time of final hearing of the industrial dispute. In paragraph 9 of the interim award which is quoted herein below: "The allegations made by the complainant can be well appreciated at the time of final hearing of the industrial dispute and prayer made by her can be considered in light thereto while disposal of the industrial dispute referred to this Tribunal for adjudication. Also, there is no evidence available of record that the complainant is gainfully employed somewhere, accordingly, in view of the discussions made bereinabove, the complainant/workman Renu Sharma is entitled for monthly compensation of Rs. Also, there is no evidence available of record that the complainant is gainfully employed somewhere, accordingly, in view of the discussions made bereinabove, the complainant/workman Renu Sharma is entitled for monthly compensation of Rs. 3000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) for alleged contravention of provisions of Section 33 of the Act, during pendency of the industrial dispute referred to this Tribunal for adjudication. In the event the applicant plays dilatory tactic for prolonging the proceeding, the opposite party management is at liberty to move application for cancellation of the interim maintenance." Once the Tribunal itself had adjudicated that the application under Section 33 A of the Act was maintainable, all the other issue had to be adjudicated by the Tribunal while passing the final award and the recourse taken by the Tribunal in refusing to interfere in the same is contrary to the interim award passed by the Tribunal itself. The error in the impugned order is apparent on the face and is in clear contradiction to the interim award dated 05.08.2022 as such, solely on that said ground, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is set aside. The matter is remanded to the CGIT to decide the matter afresh after taking into account, the interim award dated 05.08.2022 and particularly para no. 8 and 9 of the said interim award. The Tribunal shall also take into consideration the mandate of Section 2A and Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act while passing the fresh award as directed. The respondent no. 3 shall pay the amount as agreed and admitted before this Court within a period of one month to the petitioner. 7. This Court records its appreciation for the lawyers appearing on behalf of the petitioner through the Legal Service Authority in the painstaking manner in which the petition has been drafted and argued. 8. The writ petition is disposed of in terms of the above.