lflS being oompet11nt was considered by this Court in the earlier O&Se (referred to above) and was rejected. ' Bir/a Wt:11. Oo11<0 Milli BH. "1 It w&e then pointed out that the Dul&t award had •• held that there .w&B no justification for delaying Wor.tmen standardia&tion and haa ordered the parties to work out & eoheme taking the Bombay award No. l && the working model. In pursuance of that direction, & eoheme was worked out and the parties agreed to it on September 29, 1951. It wa.s urged for the appellant that the agreed eoheme of September 1951 thus became in & sense a part of the - Dul&t &ward and as it w&e terminated only in November 1956, while the present referenoe was made on March 3, 1956, that award st,ood in the way of the present reference being competent. This contention w&e negatived by this Court in its earlier jud~ment on two grounds. In the first place, it was pointed out that this agreement could not be a part of the Dulat award in any sense and therefore the Dul&t award could not stand in the way of the oompetenoe of the referenoe even if it was not terminated before the reference. In the second y plaoe, it was pointed that the agreement of 1951 did not a.mount to a settlement within the meaning of a. 2 (p) of the Industrial Dispute& Aot, 1947, aa it stood in 1951, and therefore s. 19 (2) would not apply to that agreement. We were of opinion that on the 11&111e reasoning the present argument that the reference when it W&B made was incompetent beO&uee of the Dulat award being still in force, must fail and the contention on this head ' ie rejected.
