C.R.No.6478 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.6478 of 2008. Decided on August 11, 2009. Sagar Samant, President, Ranjit Sagar Dam Conveyer Belt Workmen Sangarsh Samiti. .. Petitioner VERSUS Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh and another. .. Respondent * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI PRESENT Mr.Sukhwinder Singh Sudan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Respondent ex parte. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Petitioner, President of Ranjit Sagar Dam Conveyer Belt Workmen Sangarsh Samiti, has filed this revision petition, against the order dated 03.09.2008, dismissing the application for striking off two additional issues framed by the Industrial Tribunal, which are as follows: - 1. Whether there exists relationship of employer and employee between the parties? . . . 1 C.R.No.6478 of 2008 2. Whether the reference is not maintainable for want of proper espousal? Main grievance of the counsel for the petitioner is that the above said two additional issues were neither referred for adjudication by the State Counsel nor these concede the matter incidentally to the industrial dispute referred. He has referred to the order dated 06.02.2007 passed by the Government, in which reference has been made for determining the following two issues: - 1. Whether the retrenchment of around 400 workmen by the management w.e.f. 31.12.1998, as alleged by the union in its representation dated 24.05.2001, is illegal and wrongful? If yes, to what relief and with what details, the concerned workmen are entitled to? 2. Whether the closure of conveyor belt system of the Ranjit Sagar Dam Project by the management, without seeking permission from the specified authority u/S 25(o) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is justified and in order? If not, to what relief and with what details, the concerned workmen are entitled to? Counsel for the petitioner contends that in view of the law laid down in Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co.Ltd., Vs.Workmen and others, AIR 1967 SC 469, the Tribunal must confine its adjudication to the point of dispute referred and matters incidental thereto and that the matter incidental thereto cannot cut at the root of the main thing to which it is an adjunct. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and gone through the facts and circumstances. The dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.2, seems to arise from the retrenchment of 400 workmen by the . . . 2 C.R.No.6478 of 2008 management of Ranjit Sagar Dam Construction, w.e.f. 31.12.1998. It is also required to be determined whether closer of conveyor bel system of Ranjit Sagar Dam Project by the Management had been violative of provisions of Section 25(o) of the Industrial Disputes Act, being without permission from the specified authority. The short question which is required to be determined in the present case is, whether the additional issued mentioned hereinabove can be said to fall under Section 10(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Section 10(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, read as follows: - '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 therto.' A perusal of Section 10(4) indicates that Labour Court or Tribunal is required to confine its adjudication only to those points and matters which have been referred to or the points and matters incidental thereto. The meaning of or incidental came up for adjudication in Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Limited's case (Supra) wherein it was observed as follows: - 21. 'From the above it therefore appears that while it is open to the appropriate Government to refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be . . . 3 C.R.No.6478 of 2008 connected therewith for adjudication, the Tribunal must confine its adjudication to the points of dispute referred and matters incidental thereto. In other words, the Tribunal is not free to enlarge the scope of the dispute referred to it but must confine its attention to the points specifically mentioned and anything which is incidental thereto. The word “incidental” means according to Webster's New World Dictionary: “happening or likely to happen as a result of or in connection with something more important; being an incident; casual; hence, secondary or minor, but usually associated:” “Something incidental to a dispute” must therefore mean something happening as a result of or in connection with the dispute or associated with the dispute. The dispute is the fundamental thing while something incidental thereto is an adjunct to it. Something incidental, therefore, cannot cut at the root of the main thing to which it is an adjunct.” In the light of above said interpretation of Section 10 (4), consideration of the additional issues indicate that additional issue No.1, “whether there exists relationship of employer and employee between the parties”, is a necessary issue which is required to be determined before granting any relief to the petitioner. The said issue is incidental to the reference already made and its adjudication will settle the controversy between the petitioner and respondent No.2. So far as issue No.2, whether reference is not maintainable for want of proper espousal, is concerned, in this . . . 4 C.R.No.6478 of 2008 context, a reference can be made to Section 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which read as follows: - '2A. Dismissal, etc., of an individual workman to be deemed to be an industrial dispute.- Where any employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches or otherwise terminates the services of an individual workman, any dispute or difference between that workman and his employer connected with, or arising out of, such discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute notwithstanding that no other workman nor any union or workmen is a party to the dispute.' In view of Section 2-A of the Industrial Dispute Act, issue No.2, regarding the maintainability of the reference is redundant. It is held that the reference being not maintainable for want of proper espousal is hereby set aside as it tantamount to going beyond the reference order. So far as additional issue No.1, is concerned, it is incidental to the labour dispute between the parties. So far as framing of issue No.2, is concerned, the revision is dismissed. The revision is partly allowed in above said terms. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on the date fixed for further proceedings. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE August 11, 2009. rka . . . 5 C.R.No.6478 of 2008 . . . 6