KUMAR RAJARATNAM, J.

( 1 ) THE writ petition is taken up with the consent of parties.

( 2 ) THE only question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the Industrial Tribunal has power to add necessary and proper parties under Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'act' ).

( 3 ) THE answer is that it is not open to the Tribunal to travel materially beyond the terms of reference. It is settled law that the terms of reference determine the scope of its power. However, where certain points of dispute have been referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication it may, while dealing with the said points deal with matters incidental thereto, and that means that if while dealing with such incidental matters the Tribunal feels that some more persons who are not originally parties to the reference should be brought before it, the Tribunal may be able to make an order impleading such parties.

( 4 ) THE facts very briefly are the petitioner-workmen were engaged by the second respondent-management through the contractors namely respondents 4 to 14. It is contended that the nature of work is perennial and directly connected with the production. The workmen have put in continuous years of service in the second respondent-management. They are not paid the same wages as are being given to the employees of the second respondent-management.

( 5 ) THE conditions of service in Cement Industry are governed by various settlements.

( 6 ) IT was submitted that the second respondent-management is also governed by the provisions of the Contract Labour Abolition and Regulation act. Rule 25 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) central Rules, 1971 framed under Section 35 of the Act provides for the same benefits and wages for the work of a similar nature. It does not matter whether the workmen are employed by the management or its contractors, there should be equal pay to equal work to all the workers who do the same work.

( 7 ) SINCE the petitioner-workmen were denied such benefits, they approached the management and they also made a demand on the contractors. The contractors took the stand that the management is responsible for payment of equal pay for equal work.

( 8 ) IN these circumstances, the Union approached the Conciliation officer. Ultimately a failure report was submitted at Annexure-B. Before the Conciliation Officer, the second respondent-management did not raise any objection saying that the workmen are not the employees of the second respondent-management.

( 9 ) IN these circumstances, a reference of the dispute was made to the labour Court, Gulbarga, regarding certain demands of the workmen. The reference was registered as Ref. Nos. 265 of 1988 and 103 of 1989.

( 10 ) THEREAFTER the petitioner-workmen filed an application for bringing the contractors on record. The contractors have been impleaded in this writ petition as respondents 4 to 14. They have been served and remained ex parte.

( 11 ) THE application for bringing the contractors on record was made by the petitioner since the second respondent-management admitted before the Labour Court that the workmen are only working under the contractors. It was also submitted before the Labour Court that the demands referred to in the points of dispute clearly related to the service conditions of contract labour who were admittedly working in the management of the second respondent-establishment. The second respondent-management has also submitted that the contractors were paying wages in accordance with law. It is further clear that the second respondent had control over the contractors and the work done by the petitioner-workmen.

( 12 ) BY way of abundant caution the contractors were sought to be impleaded in the dispute. The Labour Court by the impugned order dismissed the impleading application stating that the contractors are not necessary parties. The Labour Court further held that it had no power to implead parties

Click Here to Read the rest of this document