An Industrial Tribunal can only adjudicate upon the points of dispute specified in the order of reference and matters incidental thereto. Compensation for wrongful dismissal or loss of service is a separate and independent relief, and is not incidental to reinstatement.

( 1 ) THE two applications relate to a decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal dated 4th February, 1956. This was in appeal against an award of an Industrial Tribunal, dated 31st August, 1954, published in the Calcutta Gazette on 23rd September, 1954.

( 2 ) THE facts are briefly as follows:

( 3 ) ONE Balaram Singh was employed by the Hukumchand Jute Mills Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'company') as a Time Keeper in the Shifter Section Spinning Department, of Mill No. 1. On 3rd January, 1953 he was served with a charge sheet comprising of ten different charges. After hearing him, the General Manager of the Company found him guilty of all the charges and he was dismissed by an order dated 31st January, 1953. Thereupon, Singh appealed against the said order to the Managing Agents and after hearing him the order of the General Manager was upheld on 27th February, 1953. On 24th September, 1953 the dispute between Singh and the Company was referred to the adjudication of the respondent No. 2, the Second Industrial Tribunal. The only dispute referred was as follows: "is Balaram Singh entitled to reinstatement". The Tribunal thereupon entered upon the adjudication. The only issue raised was "is Shri Balaram Singh entitled to reinstatement"? The tribunal came to the following findings : 1. The management proceeded in the matter in good faith. 2. That there has been no violation of the rules of natural justice. 3. That, so far as the charges preferred by the Company were concerned, charges No. 1 to 8 had not been established but those relating to charges 9 and 10 were established, and that being so, the action taken by the management in dismissing Singh was not fully justified.

( 4 ) BUT bis reinstatement would not tend to promote harmonious relations between the parties, but would have the opposite effect, the parties having lost confidence in each other.

( 5 ) THAT Singh was not entitled to reinstatement. The tribunal thereupon proceeded to state as follows:"this finding however does not fully dispose of the issue. It remains now to be seen what other relief, if any, the employee is entitled to. Shri Ghosh on behalf of the Company, raised a short point here. He said that the issue of reinstatement having been decided by the Tribunal, it is no more competent to adjudicate upon other matters connected therewith, having regard to the issue framed. This contention overlooks the provisions of Section 10 (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which says that the Tribunal shall confine its adjudication to the points referred to it and matters incidental thereto. It is an established principle of law that where a Court or Tribunal is called upon to decide a matter, it must decide the matter in a complete way, in order that the rights of the parties may be settled. The Court or Tribunal therefore should give appropriate reliefs which would flow from its findings (1954 L. A. C. page 5 ). This contention therefore fails. Shri Balaram Singh, however, is entitled to adequate compensation for loss of employment as envisaged in the aforesaid case. He has put in a little over 10 years of service. He is allowed to get (i) one month's total emoluments, at the rate last drawn, for each completed year of service; (ii) Provident Fund dues including the Company's Contribution duo to him and (iii) any earned leave due. "4. The appellate tribunal did not agree with the conclusions of the original tribunal. It held that the charges were not proved, that there was victimisation, and the order of dismissal was wholly unjustified. But the appellate tribunal upheld the order of the tribunal so far as it had refused reinstatement, upon a new point altogether. It appears that in his written statement, Singh had admitted that he received Rs. 7000/- on behalf of his brother Satyanarain who had been in the employ of the Company for 2 1/2 years, and was dismissed by the Company. He also repeated it in his evidence. The appellate tribunal thought that