The Tribunal must confine its award only to those disputes in respect of which a valid reference is made and it has jurisdiction to adjudicate on the same.

1. The main point urged in support of this application for quashing a reference made under Sec.10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act is that the employer company, closed the sugar mill in question with effect from the 10th March, 1964, and that many of the points referred to as being in dispute between the employer and their workmen in the aforesaid order of reference (Annexure D) deal with disputes that are likely to arise after the date of closure of the mill. It is, however, not denied that some of the items referred to in the order of reference deal with disputes between the employer and their workmen prior to the date of closure

2. The law on the subject is laid down in Pipraich Sugar Mills Ltd. V/s. Pipraich Sugar Mills Mazdoor Union, AIR 1957 SC 95 and subsequent decisions. If the Govt. makes a reference under Sec.10, including in it several items in dispute between the employer and the employees and if the Tribunal concerned holds that, in respect of some items in dispute, the order of reference is incompetent in view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, the Tribunal itself must refuse to give any decision on those points and confine its award only to those disputes in respect of which a valid reference is made and it has jurisdiction to adjudicate on the same. Here, 101 points in dispute between the employer and their workmen have been referred for adjudication by the Presiding Officer.

Industrial Tribunal It will not be proper for this Court at this stage to examine every item in dispute in detail and express its view as to whether the dispute related to a matter prior to the date of closure or to a matter which arose after the date of closure All these questions must be left open for decision by the Tribunal. We cannot at this stage say that the entire order of reference is wholly without jurisdiction, and must be quashed. Hence, without expressing our view on the various points in dispute between the parties, we would dismiss this implication with the aforesaid observations. There will be no order for costs.