THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.34731 of 1998 DATED:04.02.2008 Between: M/s. McDowell and Company limited, Hyderabad. …Petitioner And The Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabad and others. ..Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.34731 of 1998 ORDER: Heard Sri P.Nageswara Sree, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Nether Sri G.Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the respondents, is present nor is there any representation on his behalf. The question referred for consideration of the Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad, in I.D.No.11 of 1995 reads thus: “Whether the Management of Mc.Dowell and Co.Ltd., Nacharam, Hyderabad, is justified in employing the Casual Labourers without following the inter-seniority among them and engaging the fresh casual labourers while disallowing the following 62 casual labourers who have put in 4 to 5 years of service. 1. C.Ramulu 2. P.Venkat Reddy. 3. R.Ravi. 4. D.Narsimha Reddy. 5. P.Mahesh Goud. 6. B.Narayana. 7. G.Chittari. 8. T.Ravi. 9. A.Siva Kumar. 10. B.Jagga Reddy. 11. R.Srinivasulu. 12. P.Sudhakar. 13. J.B.Kadam. 14. A.Soma Reddy. 15. S.V.Venkataramana 16. B.Kishor Kumar. 17. N.Venkatesh. 18. K.Bikashapathi. 19. C.Srinivas. 20. V.Uday Kumar. 21. K.Narasimhulu. 22. B.Jangaiah. 23. V.Mohan. 24. Ch.Venkat Reddy. 25. K.Balaiah. 26. R.Srinivas. 27. N.Muthyalu. 28. E.Jangaiah. 29. P.Venkatesh. 30. S.Ghous. 31. A.Narasing Rao. 32. B.Srisailam. 33. A.Yadagiri. 34. K.Srinivasa Reddy. 35. M.Thurupatireddy. 36. J.Balaraj. 37. P.Prakash. 38. A.Buchireddy. 39. Ch.Janga Reddy. 40. G.Jayanath. 41. T.Srihari. 42. G.Ashok. 43. M.Venkata Reddy. 44. V.Narander. 45. K.Narender. 46. O.Ashok. 47. A.Narasi Reddy. 48. T.Mohan Rao. 49. K.Prabhakar. 50. P.Paravathalu. 51. M.Narasimha. 52. K.Gopala Krishna. 53. D.Das. 54. T.Krishna. 55. N.Raju. 56. P.Varal Reddy. 57. P.Mallesh. 58. A.Bhoomaiah. 59. A.Srinivas. 60. S.Balaraj. 61. M.Agamaiah. 62. M.Anjaneyulu. If not, to what extent of relief the workmen are entitled to?” The Industrial Tribunal held that some of the afore-mentioned workmen had completed 240 days of service, while some of them had not, and accordingly, passed an Award rejecting the claim of some of the workmen, who had not completed 240 days of service, and directing the management to reinstate the other workmen, who had put in 240 days of service and that they be included in the seniority list and their services be regularised. Sri P.Nageswara Sree, learned counsel for the petitioner, would draw the attention of this Court to the points, which according to the Tribunal arose for determination, to contend that the question, whether the petitioner herein was justified in employing casual labourers without following inter se seniority among them and engaging fresh casual labourers, while not engaging the services of 62 casual labourers mentioned in the reference, did not even form part of the points which arose for determination. Learned counsel would submit that, since the jurisdiction which the Tribunal is entitled to exercise is within the terms of the reference, the Award of the Labour Court in so far as it directed reinstatement of the workmen, who had completed 240 days of service, and in directing their regularization, was beyond the scope of the reference. The points for determination as noted by the Industrial Tribunal are as under: “1. Whether the Tribunal is having jurisdiction to decide the Industrial Dispute? 2. Whether termination order issued by the management on 16.01.1995 is valid. 3. Whether the workmen are entitled for reinstatement? 4. Whether the workmen are entitled for inclusion in the seniority list for regularizing their services? If so, what kind of relief the workmen are entitled to?” The question which was referred to the Tribunal was as to whether the petitioner could have employed casual labourers other than those mentioned in the reference without following inter se seniority. The justification for engaging casual labourers other than those mentioned in the order of reference was the subject matter of reference and, in such circumstances, the Industrial Tribunal could not have examined the questions as to whether the services of these workmen had been terminated contrary to the provisions of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, or as to whether they are entitled for regularization. It is settled law that the jurisdiction to be exercised by the Industrial Tribunal, in cases where a dispute is referred to it for its adjudication, must fall within the scope of the reference and that the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court cannot travel beyond the reference or adjudicate questions extraneous to the dispute referred for its adjudication. Since, in the present case, the Industrial Tribunal has exceeded the scope of the reference, the award of the Industrial Tribunal, in I.D.No.11 of 1995 dated 28.08.1998, is set aside and the matter is remanded for its consideration afresh in accordance with law. Since the dispute relates to the year 1995, and nearly 13 years have elapsed, it is appropriate that the Industrial Tribunal shall adjudicate the I.D., at the earliest, in any event not later than four (4) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is allowed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. __________ 04.02.2008 GJ