JUDGMENT : Per Deepak Roshan, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This intra court appeal questions, the correctness of the judgement and order dated 4 October 2023 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition being W.P.(L) No. 4675 of 2017 has been dismissed. The fact reveals that an industrial dispute was referred by the appropriate authority to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad (hereinafter referred to as the “Industrial Tribunal” for short) for adjudicating the following reference: “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?” On the basis of the above, Reference Case No. 39 of 2013 was registered. 3. Both the management as well as the workmen appeared and filed their written statements. 4. The case of the workmen as set out in the written statement is that the employees of Bokaro Steel Plant working in Bokaro General Hospital, particularly Nursing and para–Medical Staff are governed by the Service Rules of Bokaro Steel Plant. It has been admitted by the management of Bokaro Steel during conciliation proceedings vide letter No. Pers/IR/2012-1209 dated 21.11.2012 that the employees of Bokaro Steel Plant working in Bokaro General Hospital are governed by Service Rules, Standing Orders and Executive Orders issued from time to time and these employees have been getting all the benefits under service Rules. The non-executive employees of the BSL, who are covered under service Rules are required to perform duties from Monday to Friday from 9:30 AM to 5:00 PM with a one-hour lunch break and on Saturdays from 9:30 AM to 1 PM. So, the duty hours of employees of BSL who are governed by Service Rules is 36 hours per week. The non-executive employees of the BSL, who are covered under service Rules are required to perform duties from Monday to Friday from 9:30 AM to 5:00 PM with a one-hour lunch break and on Saturdays from 9:30 AM to 1 PM. So, the duty hours of employees of BSL who are governed by Service Rules is 36 hours per week. The Circular No. GM (P&A)/2008-7267 dated 12.12.2008 issued by GM (P&A) of BSL categorically clarifies the working hours of the non-executive employees governed by Standing Orders and Service Rules as follows: Standing Orders: -8:30 AM to 5:00 PM (with half an hour lunch break) Service Rules: - Monday to Friday 9:30 AM to 5:00 PM (with one hour lunch break, Saturday 9:30 AM to 1:00 PM) It was further stated that the Nursing and paramedical staff of Bokaro General Hospital are covered under Service Rules as they are working for 48 hours in a week and are also performing shift wise duties. The nursing and para-medical staff are performing 12 hours additional duty every week compared to the other employees who are also governed by the service rules. The employees who are governed by the service rules and working in the sales accounts and EDP centre of BSL who are required to work 48 hours in a week in shifts are paid 20% of their basic pay and DA as special allowance to compensate for the extension at the time of change in working hours from 36 to 48 hours. They are also getting an incentive and reward in addition to the aforesaid allowance of 20% of basic pay and DA. The nursing and para-medical staff have been deprived of their genuine legal rights for a long time and are exploited through unfair labour practice by the management; the staff have been getting all the benefits as per the service Rules but they have been deprived of their right of 20% of their basic pay DA as special allowance even though they work 36 to 48 hours per week and are working in shifts as well. 5. The case of the management is that the names of workmen concerned are not incorporated along with the order of reference and in the absence of the same, the reference is indefinite and vague. 5. The case of the management is that the names of workmen concerned are not incorporated along with the order of reference and in the absence of the same, the reference is indefinite and vague. Since the inception of Bokaro General Hospital and introduction of shift wise duty, the employees of the hospital whose service conditions are governed by service rules have been performing 48 hours duty in a week. The employees working at the hospital have been performing 48 hours of duty per week, 8 hours of duty per shift since the date of joining in the hospital. The workmen of the BSL who have been working 48 hours per week are entitled to get an enhanced incentive and reward of 50% and those who are working for less than 48 hours per week are getting 36% of the incentive and reward. The management has never changed the service condition of the workmen who are working at the hospital from service rules or standing orders and as such there has been no violation of the provisions of Section 9A of the ID Act. The employees of the hospital governed by service Rules have been getting all the benefits of service Rules and have also been getting the enhanced incentive and reward of 50% which is applicable for the employees working for 48 hours in a week for several years. Such workmen have been enjoying all the facilities as per the applicable Rules including the leave allowance. Hence the demand of the union for payment of 20% special allowance to the employees of the hospital is not justified. 6. In course of the proceedings before the learned Industrial Tribunal, the Workmen – Union examined three witnesses, whereas the management examined one witness. As many as 13 documents were marked as exhibits on behalf of the Workmen-Union, whereas only one document was marked as exhibit on behalf of the management. The Industrial Tribunal passed the award on 20 April 2017, answering the reference in favour of the workmen by holding that the workmen were entitled to 20% special allowance. 7. As many as 13 documents were marked as exhibits on behalf of the Workmen-Union, whereas only one document was marked as exhibit on behalf of the management. The Industrial Tribunal passed the award on 20 April 2017, answering the reference in favour of the workmen by holding that the workmen were entitled to 20% special allowance. 7. The management of Steel Authority of India Limited, Bokaro Steel Plant challenged the Award dated 20.04.2017 passed by the Industrial Tribunal in Reference Case No. 39 of 2013 by filing the above referred writ petition, which was numbered as W.P.(L) No.4675 of 2017, which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 4 October 2023. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant contended before us that the Industrial Tribunal has committed an error of jurisdiction, inasmuch as, it has not returned any finding far less positive finding as to how and on what basis the Industrial Tribunal came to the conclusion that workmen were entitled to get 20% extra allowances. It has been further argued that though the workmen had based their claim on the basis of parity with the employees of another department who were receiving 20% extra wage in terms of a scheme whereby if an employee was working for more than 48 hours and in three shifts, then they were entitled to the above-mentioned extra wage, but, neither the workmen proved nor the tribunal returned any finding on this aspect. Likewise, there is also no finding, that the workmen before the Industrial Tribunal were performing similar duties in the similar fashion or for that matter working for 48 hours per week. According to the counsel for the appellant, the award is perverse and therefore is liable to be set aside and the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the above contention in its correct perspective and thereby has erred in not interfering with the Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. 9. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent has supported the award and contended that in view of the evidence of the management witness which has been quoted in the award (paragraph 14) particularly the portion where the said witness has virtually admitted that the workmen are entitled to get 20% extra allowance, the learned Industrial Tribunal rightly arrived at the evidence that the workmen are entitled to receive 20% extra allowance. He further argued that the learned Single Judge has also rightly negated this contention raised by the Management – SAIL and has referred to the findings at paragraph 15 of the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. 10. For proper adjudication of the issue in hand, Paragraph 14, 15 and 16 of the Award and paragraph 15 of the judgment and order passed by the Single Judge are being extracted herein below:- Extracts from the Award “14. It is the admitted case that all technical staff of Bokaro Steel Plant receiving 20% extra wage from the date of introduction of scheme, barring the Bokaro General Hospital staff. Bokaro Hospital is looking the health of all officer, workmen of the Bokaro Steel Plant, they are also rendering emergency duty, if any accident in the factory occurred. 15. In the last line of the evidence, the management admitted in the suggestion that the workmen of the Bokaro general Hospital should not be debarred of 20% extra wage from the date of the scheme introduced. A few portion of cross examination is quoted below:- There is no document to support paragraph 3 of the examination in chief. I also cannot say the truthfulness i.e. documents of para 4 of my chief. If is a fact that after attending the monthly production the employees are entitled to get incentive and reward. It is not a fact that, the para-6 of my affidavit is not partially wrong. The concerned workmen are not getting 20% extra wages. But many persons in BSL get 20% which called special machine allowance. It is not a fact that workman are not entitled to get 20% extra allowance.” 16. On perusal of evidence of management, it is noticed that she has admitted 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. It is not a fact that workman are not entitled to get 20% extra allowance.” 16. On perusal of evidence of management, it is noticed that she has admitted 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. Extract from the Impugned Judgment of the learned Single Judge; “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.” 11. On perusal of the above paragraphs and also the award and the impugned judgement order as a whole, we do not find any basis for both the Industrial Tribunal as well as Single Judge to come to a conclusion that it is an “admitted fact” that the workmen, who are working in the Bokaro General Hospital were at par with the workmen working in the Sales Account Section (invoicing group) and EDP Centre (input/output section). The heavy reliance placed on the statement of the management witness to come to a conclusion that the management has admitted that the workmen are entitled to get extra 20% allowance is completely misconceived. Neither the industrial tribunal nor the learned single judge have found that the management witness was competent to make such a claim which could bind the management of Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL). After all, the payment of extra wage is a policy decision which must be taken by the competent authority and a witness who may not be competent cannot admit to the liability to make such payment. Therefore the said statement of Management Witness cannot be treated as an admission on the part of the Management – SAIL. The workmen in order to succeed must establish before the Industrial Tribunal that they are entitled to 20% extra allowances, inter alia, on the ground that they were working for 48 hours a week and three shifts or eight hours per day, and that the said office order would apply to them with equal force. 12. There being no such finding, we are of the view that the Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal and affirmed by the learned Single Judge needs interference and accordingly, both are set aside. The matter is remitted to the Industrial Tribunal to decide the matter afresh from the stage of hearing of arguments and on the basis of the material already on record; and an Award be passed within a period of three months from the date of communication of this judgment and order. We direct that the parties shall not be granted unnecessary adjournments and it is expected that both the parties will cooperate with the Industrial Tribunal in early disposal of the proceedings. The parties are not permitted to file any further documents or lead any further evidence, unless the Industrial Tribunal feels that the same is necessary for effective adjudication of the matter, and it is permissible in law for the Industrial Tribunal to allow such additional materials to be taken on record. 13. The present appeal therefore succeeds to the extent indicated above and stands disposed of. Pending I.A., if any stands closed.