WP(C) 566/2002 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI An award dated 18.7.2001 passed by the learned Labour Court, Dibrugarh i n Reference Case No. 5/95 has been put to challenge in the present writ petition by the Union representing the workmen i.e. Assam Chah Karmachari Sangha. 2. At the outset the questions referred for adjudication to the lea rned Labour Court by the State Government under Section 10 of the Industrial Dis putes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ’the Act’), may be noticed :- 1. Whether the Managements of the Mankhowa Tea Estate and Sookerating Tea Estae were justified in refusing to arrive at a fresh settlement over staff member’s retirement scheme to replace the terms of conciliation settlement dt. 6.10.70 in the matter after termination of the aforesaid settlement dt. 6.10.70 by the Man agement or not ? 2.(a) If not, to what relief, in the form of retirement benefits, the workmen are entitled to ? (b) What should be provisions of retirement scheme for the staff members emp loyed in these two Tea Estates, which will replace the settlement dt. 6.10.70 in the matter ? . 3. On receipt of the aforesaid reference, Reference Case No. 5/95 w as registered and notices were issued to the workmen as well as the Management o f the Tea Estates in question. Both sides filed their respective written stateme nts before the learned Labour Court. The case projected by the Sangha, represent ing the workmen, in brief is that after protracted negotiations a conciliation s ettlement with regard to the gratuity and pension payable to the retired employe es was arrived at by and between the Sangha and the Management. The said concili ation settlement was signed on 6.10.70 and was to be effective from 1.4.70. Acco rding to the workmen’s Union, inspite of the conciliation settlement arrived at, the terms thereof were not given effect to by the Management of the Tea Estates in question who, on 13.12.70, gave notice of cancellation of the aforesaid sett lement. As according to the Union, the conciliation settlement was to remain in force till it was substituted, and as yet the Management was not giving effect t o the same, a conciliation proceeding was held, on conclusion of which, a report dated 23.11.72 (Exhibit-4) was drawn up recording the failure to arrive at any settlement. However, no reference of the industrial dispute was made by the Stat e Government in exercise of powers under Section 10 of the Act and the matter re mained in a state of more or less animated suspension. In the year 1989 followin g the retirement of some persons the same dispute once again cropped up as the M anagement was bent upon in not acting in terms of the conciliation agreement dat ed 6.10.70. Once again a conciliation proceeding was held and a report of the sa id proceeding was drawn up on 24.8.93 (Exhibit-3). As the said conciliation proc eeding had also ended in failure, on submission of a report of such failure, the State Government by notification dated 1.3.95 referred the above noted two ques tions for adjudication by the learned Labour Court. 4. The Management in the written statement filed contended that aft er the conciliation settlement dated 6.10.70 was drawn up and executed by the pa rties concerned, an industry-wise settlement was arrived at between the Assam Te a Planters’ Association, Bharatiaya Chah Parishad and the Assam Chaha Karmachari Sangha on 18.11.70 which was to be effective from 1.11.70. Thereafter, on 13.12 .70 the Management gave notice of its intention to cancel the conciliation settl ement dated 6.10.70. The Management, in the written statement filed, had further stated that after failure of the conciliation proceeding held in the year 1972- 73, the matter remained at that and there was no demand on the part of the workm en for a fresh settlement. It was only in the year 1989 i.e. after a lapse of 25 years that the demand for the benefits under the conciliation settlement dated 6.10.70 was once again raised resulting in another consequential conciliation pr oceeding which also failed. According to the Management, gratuity to the retirin g workmen was payable in accordance with the provisions of the Payment of Gratui ty Act, 1972 which had come into force in the meantime and pension was also paid to the retiring persons as per their entitlement. Consequently, the Management urged, in the written statement filed, that the workmen were entitled to no furt her benefits. In the written statement filed, the Management had specifically ra ised the question that at no point of time there was any demand for any fresh se ttlement in place of the conciliation settlement dated 6.10.70. Rather, the insi stence of the workmen, all along, had been for implementation of the said earlie r settlement i.e. the settlement dated 6.10.70. 5. The records in original requisitioned by the Court from the offi ce of the learned Labour Court have been duly perused. I have heard Ms. A Bhatta charyya, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr GN Sahewalla, learned counsel fo r the respondent No.1 and Mr S Kejriwal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 6. The case pleaded by the workmen in both rounds of conciliation a s evident from the records in original, clearly appears to be for implementation of the terms of the conciliation agreement of 1970. A reading of the written st atement filed on behalf of the workmen before the learned Labour Court as well a s the pleadings contained in the writ petition and the arguments advanced are al so to the same effect. In this regard, the Court must take note of the questions referred for adjudication by the learned Labour Court. The first question refer red for adjudication is the justifiability of the action of the Management in re fusing to arrive at a fresh settlement in place of the conciliation settlement d ated 6.10.70. The question of implementation of the conciliation settlement of 1 990, therefore, had not been referred for adjudication by the learned Labour Cou rt. Much argument has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, r elying on the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in several cases, that the conci liation settlement dated 6.10.70 must be understood by the Court to be still hol ding the field as the same has not been substituted by any other fresh settlemen t. Notwithstanding the arguments made by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the aforesaid score, no declaration could have been given by the learned Labo ur Court and, therefore, none by this Court also, with regard to the implementat ion of the conciliation settlement of 1970. The question referred, as already no ticed, proceeds on the basis that the conciliation settlement dated 6.10.70 had come to an end and what was required to be answered by the learned Labour Court is the justifiability of the Management’s action in refusing to come to a fresh settlement in place of the aforesaid earlier settlement. 7. The power and jurisdiction of the Labour Court, or for that matt er any other industrial forum, while hearing a reference is severely circumscrib ed by the terms of the reference or any such question that may coincidentally ar ise from what has been referred. A mere reading of the first question abundantly discloses that the question of implementation of the conciliation settlement of 1970 was not referred to the learned Labour Court; neither the said question ca n be said to be reasonably arising from the first question referred. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the aforesaid question of implementation of the conciliation agreement of 1970 could not have been gone into by the learned Labo ur Court. Dealing with the question referred to it, the finding of the learned L abour Court is to the effect that the evidence and the materials on record do no t disclose that the workmen had made any demand for substitution of the settleme nt of 1970 by a fresh settlement. Rather, the demand raised is for implementatio n of the settlement of 1970. The said finding being essentially on a question of fact required to be dealt with on the basis of the evidence on record, and no e vidence to the above effect i.e. that any such demand was raised for a fresh set tlement, having been laid, the Court is of the view that the learned Labour Cour t was justified in arriving at its conclusion under question No.1. Coming to the second question referred, what this Court finds is that no t only the said question is consequential to an affirmative answer being given t o the first question, the learned Labour Court has also recorded that no materia l or evidence on the said score had been adduced by the workmen to show what sho uld be the ideal and reasonable quantum of pension and gratuity that would be pa yable to them. If no evidence on the aforesaid score had been adduced by the wor kmen, which fact is evident from a mere perusal of the evidence on record, the f inding recorded by the learned Labour Court on the second question also cannot b e faulted with. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, I find no merit in this writ petition . The writ petition is consequently dismissed, however, without imposing any cos t.