The Industrial Tribunal's jurisdiction is limited to the points specifically referred for adjudication and matters incidental thereto. It cannot travel beyond the terms of reference except for ancillary matters.

Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 10(1)(D) - REFERENCE TO INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS - REFERENCE ASSUMING TERMINATION OF SERVICE - TRIBUNAL CANNOT DECIDE WHETHER EMPLOYEE ABANDONED JOB.
Fact of the Case:

Petitioner ran a restaurant named "Cafe Real" in Panaji, Goa. Respondent No. 4 was employed by the petitioner since 1973 but did not report to duty from 1-3-1978. A dispute arose, and conciliation proceedings were held. The petitioner offered to pay gratuity, leave wages, and other dues if the respondent was not interested in continuing employment. A settlement was attempted but failed. The Government of Goa, Daman, and Diu referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal under section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for adjudication.
Finding of the Court:

The reference to the Industrial Tribunal was bad in law. The reference assumed the termination of the respondent's service, leaving only the question of whether the termination was legal and justified for the Tribunal to decide. The Tribunal could not decide whether the respondent had abandoned his job, which was the petitioner's contention.
Issues: 1. Whether the reference to the Industrial Tribunal was valid. 2. Whether the Tribunal could decide the question of whether the respondent had abandoned his job.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal is limited to the points specifically referred for adjudication and matters incidental thereto. 2. The Tribunal cannot travel beyond the terms of reference except for ancillary matters. 3. The reference in this case assumed the termination of the respondent's service, leaving only the question of whether the termination was legal and justified for the Tribunal to decide. 4. The Tribunal could not decide the question of whether the respondent had abandoned his job, which was the petitioner's contention.
Final Decision: The reference to the Industrial Tribunal and the Award passed by the Tribunal were quashed. The Government was free to consider making a fresh reference.

JUDGMENT - WaikarM.R., J.-This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order of reference made by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and to quash the Award passed by the respondent No. 3.

2. The petitioner runs an establishment namely a restaurant under the name and style “Cafe Real” at Panaji, Goa. It is registered under the Shops and Establishments Act. The respondent No. 4 was in the employ-ment of the petitioner since the year 1973. Admittedly, since 1-3-1978, the respondent No. 4 did not report to duty. A dispute was then raised, for the first time, about 6 months thereafter on 26-9-1978 by the respondent No. 4 and the conciliation proceedings were held by the Assistant Labour Commissioner in respect of the alleged dispute. The contention of the respondent No. 4 was that he was removed from the service. Whereas the contention of the petitioner was that he used to remain absent from duty without any prior intimation and he abandoned the job from 1-3-1978 and never turned up. During the conciliation proceedings, the petitioner sub-mitted that in case the workman was not interested, he would be paid his gratuity, leave wages, if any, and other legal dues.

3. Thereafter it Appeared that on 15-12-1978 between the representa- tives of the employer and the employee, certain terms of settlement were worked out, but the respondent No. 4 refused to accept those terms. The conciliation proceedings having ended in a failure, the reference in question was made by the Government of Goa, Daman and Diu under sec- tion 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal.

4. The said Tribunal passed the Award in question holding that the action of the petitioner in terminating the services of the respondent No. 4 was illegal and unjustified and the workman was entitled to be reinstated with full back wages with effect from 1-3-1978 till the date of reinstatement with 6% interest.

5. Feeling aggrieved by this Award, the present petition has been filed.

6. Shri Joshi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the reference in question itself was bad in law. According to him, the termination of the service of respondent No. 4 by the petitioner was assum- ed and the only question left open for decision was whether the said termi- nation was legal and justified. According to him, the Tribunal could not decide the question whether the respondent No. 4 has abandoned his job which was the contention of the petitioner. He relied upon the observa- tions of the Full Bench decision of the Delhi High Court in (M/s India Tourism Development Corporation, New Delhi v. Delhi Administration, Delhi and others)1. The dispute there was whether there was a closure or a lock- out and the terms of reference were :

“Whether the workmen as shown in Annexure 'A' are entitled to wages for a period of lock-out w. e. f. 1-1-81-and if so, what directions are necessary in this respect?”

When a challenge to this reference was raised, this is what the Delhi High Court in the said decision observed :

“It is settled law that the jurisdiction of the Labour Court/Indus-trial Tribunal in industrial dispute is limited to the points specifically referred for its adjudication and the matters incidental thereto and it is not permissible to go beyond the terms of the reference It exercises such jurisdiction and power only upon and under order of reference limited to its terms. It cannot travel beyond the terms of reference except for ancillary matters. Making of an order of reference is undoub-tedly an administrative function, but even that is amenable to judicial review in the proceedings under Article 226 under certain facts and circumstances. An order of reference is open to judicial review if it is shown that the appropriate Government has not applied its mind to the material before it or has not taken into consideration certain vital facts

which it ought to have taken into consideration. We are

Click Here to Read the rest of this document