Gujarat High Court
Dipakkumar Laxmanbhai Parmar vs Gujarat Polybutenes Private Limited on 30 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1199/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1199 of 2020
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3466 of 2020
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3469 of 2020
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3475 of 2020
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3476 of 2020
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4893 of 2020
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4894 of 2020
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6801 of 2020
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6800 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
YES
==========================================================
DIPAKKUMAR LAXMANBHAI PARMAR
Versus
GUJARAT POLYBUTENES PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR UT MISHRA(3605) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR NISARG DESAI WITH MS PRAVALIKHA BATTHINI FOR GANDHI LAW
ASSOCIATES(12275) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 30/07/2025
Page 1 of 25
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 21:33:20 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1199/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
ORAL JUDGMENT
1 Since the issue raised in these petitions is similar, they are being decided by a common judgment. The facts of Special Civil Application No.1199 of 2020 are taken for the purpose of adjudication.
2 This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the award dated 01.04.2019 passed by the learned Labour Court, Vadodara in Reference (LCB) No.349 of 2013, whereby the Reference filed by the present petitioner came to be dismissed.
3 It was the case of the present petitioner before the learned Reference Court, as stated in the statement of claim, that he had been serving as a Helper with the respondent establishment for the past 23 years, and that his services were terminated on 29.12.2012 in violation of Sections 25F, 25G, and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the I.D. Act'). It was contended by the workman that juniors were retained in service, and that the retrenchment was effected without considering the seniority list. Accordingly, the petitioner filed the Reference seeking reinstatement from the date of termination.
Page 2 of 25 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 21:33:20 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1199/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025 undefined 3.1 The respondent establishment appeared before the learned Reference Court and filed its written statement, stating that the petitioner's services were terminated on 29.12.2012 with the payment of one month's notice pay as well as retrenchment compensation, in compliance with Section 25F of the I.D. Act. It was contended that the termination was effected due to the poor financial condition of the establishment, and that due procedure under the I.D. Act was followed. It was further submitted that no juniors were retained in service after the petitioner's retrenchment, nor were any new employees appointed thereafter. Hence, it was prayed that the Reference be rejected.
3.2 On considering the submissions and the evidence adduced by both sides, the learned Reference Court dismissed the Reference on the ground that the petitioner failed to establish a case of illegal retrenchment under Section 25F, and also failed to prove violations of Sections 25G and 25H of the I.D. Act, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.
4 Heard the learned advocate Mr.U.T.Mishra for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Nisarg Desai with Ms.Pravalikha Batthini for the respondent.
Page 3 of 25 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 21:33:20 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1199/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025 undefined 5 Learned advocate Mr. U.T. Mishra submits that the services of the petitioner were terminated on 29.12.2012, and he was paid one month's notice pay of Rs.7,970/- and retrenchment compensation of Rs.91,655/-, totaling Rs.99,625/-. It is submitted by the learned advocate Mr.Mishra that, as per the termination order, the petitioner had completed 23 years of service, and under the provisions of Section 25F of the I.D.Act, 1947, he was entitled to retrenchment compensation equivalent to 15 days' wages for each completed year of service. As per the petitioner's calculation, the amount of retrenchment compensation whould have come to approximately Rs.1,12,000/-. However, only Rs.91,655/- was paid, which is lesser than the statutory requirement. Therefore, it is submitted that there has been non- compliance with Section 25F of the I.D. Act, rendering the termination illegal in the eyes of law.
5.1 It is further submitted by the learned advocate Mr. Mishra that more than 100 employees were working in the respondent establishment, and therefore, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter VB of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, prior permission under Section 25N was mandatorily required before effecting retrenchment. In the absence of such permission, Page 4 of 25 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 21:33:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1199/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025 undefined the order of retrenchment is vitiated and liable to be set aside. Learned advocate Mr. Mishra submits that though the petitioner had clearly established the violation of Sections 25N and 25O of the I.D. Act, the learned Labour Court failed to consider these aspects and erroneously dismissed the Reference.
5.2 It is further submitted by the learned advocate Mr.Mishra that after retrenching the petitioner, the employer engaged several daily wagers and allotted work to them. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that there was no work available with the employer. Despite availability of work and engagement of other employees, the petitioner was not offered reemployment, which amounts to a violation of Sections 25G and 25H of the I.D. Act. However, the learned Labour Court overlooked these statutory violations and dismissed the Reference.
5.3 Learned advocate Mr. Mishra also submits that no cogent evidence was brought on record to establish the alleged unsound financial condition of the employer. Mere pleading without proof cannot be accepted in law. It is further pointed out that even after the order of retrenchment dated Page 5 of 25 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 21:33:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1199/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025 undefined 29.12.2012, the respondent establishment continued to operate till 2016 and work was carried out by engaging other employees. In this background as well, the impugned award is required to be interfered with.
5.4 Learned advocate Mr. Mishra has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Rajendra Shankar Shukla v. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in (2015) 10 SCC 400, and submitted that the learned Labour Court has committed an error in not adjudicating upon the contention raised by the petitioner regarding the applicability of Chapter V(B) of the I.D. Act, 1947. It is submitted that the issue pertains to a pure question of law, and therefore, it was open for the petitioner to raise such a contention at any stage of the proceedings.
5.5 Learned advocate Mr. Mishra further submits that even in the absence of specific pleadings in the statement of claim, once the evidence with respect to the applicability and violation of Chapter V(B) was brought on record, the learned Labour Court ought to have considered the same and adjudicated the dispute in that context. However, the learned Labour Court has erroneously ignored Page 6 of 25 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 21:33:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1199/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025 undefined the material evidence relating to the violation of Chapter V(B), and such omission amounts to a serious error in law. On this ground also, the impugned award is liable to be quashed and set aside.
5.6 Learned advocate Mr. Mishra has also relied on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Harjinder Singh vs. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, reported in (2010) 3 SCC 192, and submitted that, even for establishing a breach of Sections 25G and 25H, it is not necessary to examine the violation of Section 25F, as all these provisions operate independently and are required to be examined separately by the learned Court. In view of the above submissions, learned advocate Mr. Mishra submits that the learned Labour Court has committed an error in dismissing the Reference. Therefore, the impugned award deserves to be set aside, and the present petition is required to be allowed.
6 Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Nisarg Desai, appearing for the respondent, has submitted that, with regard to the contention of short payment of retrenchment compensation, no such averments Page 7 of 25 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 21:33:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1199/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025 undefined were made either in the statement of claim or during the course of evidence. Learned advocate Mr. Desai submits that during the cross-examination, the petitioner categorically admitted that the retrenchment compensation paid to him was received, and at no point of time was any dispute raised regarding the alleged shortfall in the compensation amount. Hence, the ground of non- compliance with Section 25F of the I.D. Act cannot be sustained.
6.1 It is further submitted by Mr. Desai that since the petitioner has admitted receipt of both notice pay and retrenchment compensation, there is no ground to set aside the termination on the basis of Section 25F.
6.2 With regard to the contentions under Sections 25G and 25H of the I.D. Act, it is submitted by the learned advocate Mr.Desai that though the petitioner has claimed in his chief examination that some persons were continued in service after his termination, his own evidence indicates that the alleged employees were appointed prior to his termination. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that any juniors were retained or appointed after his termination, and thus no violation of Page 8 of 25 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 21:33:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1199/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025 undefined Sections 25G or 25H is made out.
6.3 Learned advocate Mr. Desai further submits that during cross-examination, the petitioner himself admitted that he had no knowledge about any fresh appointments or continuation of juniors after his termination. In that background as well, the Labour Court rightly concluded that no violation of Sections 25G or 25H was established.
6.4 In support of his submissions, learned advocate Mr. Desai has relied on the following decisions:
(1) Brahm Pal Singh vs. P.O., Industrial Tribunal No.II & Ors. (High Court of Delhi), (2) Ranjit Natvarlal Chauhan vs. Morbi Nagar Palika, 2011 SCC OnLine Guj 976 (Division Bench of this Court), and (3) Regional Manager, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur vs. Bhanwar Lal Saini, (High Court of Rajasthan).
6.5 Learned advocate Mr.Desai submits that it is for the petitioner to establish his claim by leading cogent and reliable evidence, and in the absence of the same, the plea of violation of Sections 25G and 25H cannot be sustained.
Page 9 of 25 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 21:33:20 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1199/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025 undefined 6.6 With regard to the contention of illegal closure, it is submitted by the learned advocate Mr.Desai that the same was not part of the terms of reference referred for adjudication before the Labour Court. Learned advocate Mr. Desai submits that the petitioner had neither raised any plea regarding violation of Sections 25O and 25N of the I.D. Act in the original statement of claim nor sought any amendment to that effect. In this background, the Labour Court rightly did not consider the said contentions. He submits that such a question cannot be considered incidental to the main reference, and therefore, no error has been committed by the learned Court in dismissing the Reference.
7 Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties and on perusal of the reasons assigned by the learned Reference Court, it emerges that the petitioner, who was serving as a Helper with the respondent establishment at its Hajira plant, was terminated on 29.12.2012 upon payment of retrenchment compensation of ₹91,655/- for 23 years of service, along with one month's notice pay of ₹7,970/-. In the statement of claim filed before the learned Reference Court, the petitioner did not raise any grievance Page 10 of 25 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 21:33:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1199/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025 undefined regarding the alleged shortfall in payment of retrenchment compensation.
8 In addition to the above, during the cross- examination, the petitioner admitted that he had received the retrenchment compensation amount as reflected in Exhibit 9/1. The petitioner ought to have specifically pleaded, either in the statement of claim or through evidence, that there was a shortfall in the payment of retrenchment compensation, thereby resulting in a violation of Section 25F of the I.D. Act. In the absence of any such pleadings or supporting evidence, and considering the petitioner's own admission that he received the amount as recorded in Exhibit 9/1, it can be concluded that the petitioner either admitted or did not controvert the facts pertaining to the payment of retrenchment compensation. Though it is true that legal issues can be raised at any stage, the present issue involves disputed questions of fact which ought to have been raised and established by leading cogent evidence before the learned Labour Court. In absence of such evidence, this Court is of the view that no error has been committed by the learned Labour Court in disbelieving the petitioner's case regarding the alleged violation of Section 25F of the I.D. Act.
Page 11 of 25 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 21:33:20 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1199/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025 undefined 8.1 With regard to the alleged violation of Section 25G of the I.D. Act, it is the case of the petitioner that junior employees were retained in service while he alone was chosen for retrenchment. However, the termination order itself indicates that the petitioner was the junior-most employee, and therefore, his services were retrenched. Furthermore, the seniority list produced on record at Exhibit 27/1 has not been disputed by the petitioner, nor has he established that any Helpers junior to him were continued in service. In that background, the learned Labour Court has rightly disbelieved the petitioner's case with regard to the alleged breach of Section 25G of the I.D. Act.
9 As far as Section 25H of the I.D. Act is concerned, though the petitioner, during his chief examination, has stated the names of various employees, the dates of their engagement as stated by the petitioner himself indicate that those employees were already in service on the date of the petitioner's termination. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner was denied an opportunity of re-employment while others were employed after his termination. In the absence of any concrete evidence showing that the respondent establishment employed any person after the termination of the petitioner in violation of Page 12 of 25 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 21:33:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1199/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025 undefined Section 25H, the learned Labour Court has rightly not accepted the petitioner's claim under the said provision.
10 It is also admitted by the petitioner during cross-
examination that he does not have any knowledge as to whether any other persons were engaged after his retrenchment, nor does he have any information regarding the engagement of trainees post his termination. In these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the workman has failed to discharge the burden of proof by not producing satisfactory evidence to establish that other persons were engaged and that he was not offered re-employment.
11 With regard to the last contention concerning the applicability of Chapter V(B) of the I.D. Act, upon perusal of the statement of claim, it is evident that the petitioner has not raised any contention with respect to the breach of either Section 25O or Section 25N of the I.D. Act. At this stage, reliance is placed on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Hochtief Gammon v. Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneshwar, reported in AIR (1964) SC 1746, wherein it has been held that Section 10(4), which was inserted by way of an amendment, restricts the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court to the Page 13 of 25 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 21:33:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1199/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025 undefined specific points of dispute referred to it by the order of reference. The said jurisdiction, however, may extend to matters that are incidental to the said points. The Apex Court further observed as under:
"(15) In Anil Kumar Updhaya v. P. K. Sarkar , AIR 1961 Cal 60 a learned single Judge of the Calcutta High Court has accepted the same view. In that case, the Trustees of the Provident Fund in question who had not been impleaded originally to the reference were summoned by the Tribunal and the Court held that in the absence of the Trustees, the award would have become nugatory. It would be noticed that in all these decisions, the implied power of the Tribunal to summon additional parties in the reference proceedings is confined only to cases where such addition appeared to be necessary for making the reference complete and the award effective and enforceable. Such a power cannot be exercised to extend the scope of the reference and to bring in matters which are not the subject-matter of the reference and which are not incidental to the dispute which has been referred.
*** (17). The next contention raised by Mr. Chatterjee is that M/s Hindustan Steel Ltd. is a necessary party because it is the, said concern which is the employer of Page 14 of 25 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 21:33:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1199/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025 undefined the respondents and not the appellant. In either words, this contention is that though in form the appellant engaged the workmen whom the respondent union represents, the appellant was actingas the agent of its principal and for adjudicating upon the industrial dispute referred to the Tribunal by the State of Orissa, it is necessary that the principal, viz., M/s Hindustan Steel Ltd. ought to be added as a party. In dealing with this argument, it is necessary to bear in mind the fact that the appellant does not dispute the respondent Union's case that the workmen were employed by the appellant. It would have been open to the State Government to ask the Tribunal to consider who was the employer of these workmen and in that case, the terms of reference might have been suitably framed.
Where the appropriate Government desires that the question as to who the employer is should be determined, it generally makes a reference in wide enough terms and includes as parties to the reference different persons who are alleged to be the employers. Such a course has not been adopted in the present proceedings, and so, it would not be possible to hold that the question as to who is the employer as between the appellant and M/s Hindustan Steel Ltd. is a, question incidental to the industrial dispute which has Page 15 of 25 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 21:33:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1199/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025 undefined been referred under s. 10(1)(d) This dispute is a substantial dispute between the appellant and M/s Hindustan Steel Ltd. and cannot be regarded as incidental in any sense, and so, we think that even this ground is not sufficient to justify the contention that M/s Hindustan Steel Ltd. is a, necessary party which can be added and summoned under the implied powers of the Tribunal under s. 18(3)(b).
12 In the opinion of this Court the Court cannot examine the case beyond the points which are specified in the order of reference or incidental thereto. To examine that Whether the alleged breach of section 25N and 25O can be said to be incidental to the main question which was referred to the learend Court with regard to the illegal termination, if one would examine the said question then it emerges that while claiming the illegal termination in the statement of claim, no averments were made with regard to violation of chapter V(B). At this stage, the reference of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India and others vs. Retired L.I.C. Officers Association and others, reported in 2008 4 SCC 321 is required to be be made wherein in paragraph 20 to 23 it is held as under:
"20. Method of fixation, eligibility for the benefit of Page 16 of 25 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 21:33:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1199/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025 undefined revision and the date from which the revisions shall apply are thus, the only areas within which the Chairman can exercise jurisdiction. The effect of revision of pay scales on other spheres and which are otherwise governed by another statute or other provisions of the said Regulations would not come within the purview thereof. 21. The terminology used "and other matters connected therewith or incidental thereto" must, therefore, be held to have a direct nexus with any one of the aforementioned three elements. The same has nothing to do with the construction of any other provision of the Regulations. The words "incidental to"
cannot be interpreted too broadly. It cannot be read independently of the main provision. It cannot serve some other purpose which is not covered by Regulation 51 of the Regulations. It cannot be permitted to encroach upon an area which is not within the jurisdiction of the Chairman of the Corporation.
22. It is one thing to say that the court while exercising its jurisdiction would be entitled to exercise such incidental power for determination of the principal issue but it is another thing to say that a statutory authority in such matters would be held to have such power which is beyond the scope and purport of the principal provisions.
Page 17 of 25 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 21:33:20 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1199/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025 undefined
23. The word "Incidental" has been defined in Advanced Law Lexicon 3rd (2005) Edition, Book 2 at 2275 to mean :- "According to Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, a thing is said to be incidental to another when it appertains to the principal thing. According to the ordinary Dictionary meaning, it signifies a subordinate action. Hukumchand Jute Mills Ltd. vs. Labour Appellate Tribunal, AIR 1958 Cal. 68, 70. (Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1917), S. 10(4)]. The word "incidental" does not imply any casual or fortuitous connection. In a legal sense as applied to powers, it means a power which is subsidiary to that which has been expressed, and of an instrumental nature in relation thereto, which is both necessary and proper for the carrying into execution of the main power which has been expressly conferred. (Dunichand and Co. vs. Narain Das and Co. (1947) 17 Comp. Cas. 195 (FB)."
13 This Court has also referred the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Airlines Hotel (Private) Ltd. Bombay vs. Workmen, reported in AIR (1962) SC 676 wherein it is held as under:
"1. This appeal by special leave arises out of an industrial dispute between the appellant company, the Airlines Hotel Private Limited, Bombay, which runs hotel business in the city of Bombay Page 18 of 25 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 21:33:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1199/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025 undefined and its workmen. The workmen had raised demands in regard to a number of matters including, wages, service charges and provident fund. The demand in the matter of service charges was divided into five heads, one of which was inspection of the company's accounts books, bills and receipt books etc., "to ascertain the correct amount collected by the management and due to the workers." The Government made a reference for adjudication by an industrial tribunal under Section 10 of the Act as regards all the demands, excepting one, viz., the demand for inspection of accounts in connection with the amount of service charges. The Tribunal made as award in favour of the workers as regards the demand on the question of wages and the demand for provident fund. The demand as regards service charges was rejected except that the Tribunal directed all outstanding arrears in respect of what the company admitted to be payable to workers to be paid within one month and that a direction was given for giving access to the workers to the books of account for the purpose of ascertaining the amount collected. The special leave granted by this Court was limited to three points, viz., (1) the matter of inspection of accounts ; (2) the wages ; and (3) the provident fund. With the other portions of the award we are not concerned in this appeal.
2. The appellant's main contention on the first question is that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to give any direction to the appellant to give access to the workers to the account books in view of the fact that the Government had in terms refused to refer the dispute as regards the inspection of accounts. In our opinion, this contention should prevail.
3. On behalf of the workmen it was urged that the only result of Page 19 of 25 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 21:33:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1199/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025 undefined the refusal of the Government to refer for adjudication the demand for inspection of accounts was that the Tribunal would have no jurisdiction to deal with this matter directly ; but that would not stand in the way of giving such directions as the Tribunal might think necessary as ancillary to its award on any other point in dispute. It is urged that the Tribunal has given this direction not as a decision on a matter which was not referred to it but only as incidental to the dispute as regards service charges that was in fact referred. If the question of inspection of accounts had not at all been raised so that there was no question of refusal to refer the question, there might perhaps be some scope for an argument that the question might have been considered as involved in and incidental to the question of service charges that was referred. That however is not the position here. As has already been pointed out, the workmen had mentioned five different heads of the demand for service charges, one of the heads being for inspection of accounts, in these words: -
"The management should place all the account books, bills and receipt books etc., from 1-1-57 onwards and relevant documents of the Airlines Hotel Private Ltd., before the representatives of Bombay Hotels Kamgar Union for inspection to ascertain the correct amount collected by the management and due to the workers."
It was this demand which the government refused to refer because "the government was satisfied that there was no case for reference thereof to a tribunal for the reason that this demand was not reasonable." In these circumstances, there can be no justification for the view that what could not be done directly because of this refusal could be done indirectly on the plea that it was incidental.
Page 20 of 25 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 21:33:20 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1199/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025 undefined In our opinion, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to give the direction as regards inspection of accounts. That direction must accordingly be set aside.
9. While we think it undesirable to lay it down as an inviolable rule that if the dispute referred is on the question of wage scale ad hoc increases could never be given, there can be no doubt that ordinarily that should be so. On the facts of the present case there are no circumstances which would justify a departure from this ordinary rule. Demands which raised the dispute being for a wage scale and that being the dispute referred in terms the Tribunal could either grant the wage scale demanded in part or in whole or refuse the demand altogether. It was not justified in giving ad hoc increases in the manner as has been done here."
13.1 This Court has referred the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Oshiar Prasad and Others Versus Employers In Relation to Management of Sudamdih Coal, Washery of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad, Jharkhand reported in (2015) 4 SCC 71 wherein, the Apex Court has held as under:-
"17. Before we examine the factual matrix of the case in hand, we consider it apposite to take note of law laid down by this Court regarding the powers of the appropriate Government in making reference under Section 10 of the Act and the jurisdiction of the Tribunal while answering the reference. Indeed it is well Page 21 of 25 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 21:33:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1199/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025 undefined settled and remains no more res integra.
18. One of the questions which fell for consideration by this Court in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. vs. The Workmen and Others (AIR 1967 SC 469) was that what are the powers of the appropriate Government while making a reference and the scope and jurisdiction of Industrial Tribunal under Section 10 of the Act.
19. Justice Mitter, speaking for the Bench, held as under:
"(8) ......Under S. 10(1)(d) of the Act, it is open to the appropriate Government when it is of opinion that any industrial dispute exists to make an order in writing referring "the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with, or relevant to the dispute,.....to a Tribunal for adjudication" under s. 10(4) "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."
(9) 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 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 Page 22 of 25 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 21:33:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1199/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025 undefined 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 to it....."
13.2 This Court has also referred the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Firestone Tyre And Rubber Company of India (P0 Ltd. Versus Workmen Employed, Represented by Firestone Tyre Employees' Union reported in (1981) 3 SCC 451, wherein, the Apex Court has held as under:-
"9. In this case the points of dispute were specified in the schedule to the order of reference, and the Tribunal was therefore required to confine its adjudication to those points and matters that were incidental to them. From a reading of demands 1(A) and 1(B) as a whole it is clear that the demand for reinstatement in respect of both groups of workmen as made arises on the Page 23 of 25 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 21:33:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1199/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025 undefined alleged invalidity of the action taken by the management in dismissing these workmen. The issue of unfair labour practice or discrimination by reason of subsequent reinstatement on a permanent basis of some and not all the 25 workmen was not a matter referred to the Tribunal for adjudication, nor it can be said to be in any way connected with or incidental to the right of reinstatement claimed by the 101 workmen from the date of their dismissal. The fairness of subsequent absorption of some workmen is a matter quite irrelevant for judging the validity of the earlier dismissal of these workmen along with others; it is an entirely separate and independent question. The Tribunal also did not frame an issue on the alleged discrimination. That being so, we think the Tribunal travelled outside its jurisdiction in recording a finding of unfair labour practice and discrimination."
14 In the opinion of this Court, on referring to the above decisions, it is clear that an incidental matter cannot override or cut at the root of the principal issue to which it is ancillary. Whether a matter is incidental or not would depend on how and under what circumstances the question arises in the context of the dispute referred for adjudication. A matter which is independent in one context may become subsidiary in another, depending on the factual and legal framework. A different result and procedure would follow if a party were to allege a breach of the provisions under Chapter V(B) of the I.D. Act. In this background, the issue regarding the Page 24 of 25 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 21:33:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1199/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025 undefined applicability of Chapter V(B), when the dispute referred was limited to the alleged breaches of Sections 25F, 25G, and 25H of the I.D. Act, cannot be said to be incidental to the reference.
15 Considering the overall circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any merit in the petitions, nor any illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by the learned Labour Court. Accordingly, these petitions are dismissed. Rule is discharged.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) M.M.MIRZA Page 25 of 25 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 21:33:20 IST 2025