( 1 ) BY this order, I shall dispose of writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the validity of award dated 7th July, 2004 whereby the labour Court answered the reference against the workman. The following dispute was referred by the appropriate government for adjudication by the Labour court:"whether the services of Shri Ram Jatan Tripathi have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect. "

( 2 ) THE Labour Court after appreciating the evidence and material placed before it came to the conclusion that the services of petitioner were not terminated illegally and it was the petitioner, who himself abandoned the services and did not turn up for duty.

( 3 ) THE petitioner has challenged the award and alleged that the labour Court transgressed its jurisdiction by considering whether the petitioner had abandoned the services or not. The dispute referred to the Labour Court was about illegality or legality of the termination, no dispute of abandonment of services was referred and in view of law laid down by the Supreme Court in The delhi Cloth and General Mills Company Limited v. The Workmen and Ors. , AIR 1967 ssc 469, the decision of the Labour Court was perverse. It is submitted by the petitioner counsel that the issue of abandonment of service was not incidental to the dispute and, therefore, could not have been gone into by the Tribunal. No other ground has been pressed during the arguments. On the other hand, the counsel for respondent argued that the Tribunal did not transgress its jurisdiction. The Tribunal in fact came to the conclusion that the services of the petitioner were not illegally terminated by the respondent, rather it was the petitioner, who abandoned the service. This observation of the Tribunal was based on the evidence and material placed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal in order to determine whether the service of the petitioner had been terminated or not, was necessarily to consider the factum of abandonment of service by the petitioner. This was incidental to the dispute.

( 4 ) THE petitioner has relied upon Sitaram Vishnu Shirodkar v. The administrator, Government of Goa and Ors. 1985 (I) LLJ 480, wherein a division bench of Bombay High Court observed that when the reference made was about the termination of the service, the Tribunal constituted under the Act cannot travel beyond the reference and decide whether the workman had abandoned the service or not. The reference proceeds on the basis that there was termination of service and the only question left open for decision was whether the termination was legal and proper. With due deference to their lordships, I consider that the observation of the Division Bench is not the correct position of law

( 5 ) THE jurisdiction of Tribunal emanates from the terms of reference and Tribunal cannot go beyond the terms of reference. The reference of a dispute under Industrial Tribunal is made under Section 10 of the Act. Sub section 4 of Section 10 provides as under: where in an order referring an industrial dispute to [a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal] under this section or in a subsequent order, the appropriate Government has specified the points of dispute for adjudication, [the Labour Court or the Tribunal or the National Tribunal, as the case may be,] shall confine its adjudication to those points and matters incidental thereto. A perusal of above sub section shows that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is confined to the points specified in the order of reference or the matters incidental thereto. The matters which are incidental to the reference may be of such significance that they may go to the root of the jurisdiction of the tribunal for example whether the workman was a workman or not at all, whether the employer was an industry or not and such other questions. A Tribunal cannot shut its eyes to the other incidental questions as well and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document