Telangana High Court

The Management Of Bhagwan ... vs The Chairman/ Industrial ... on 6 December, 2022

Bench: Surepalli Nanda

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

                 W.P. No. 10895 of 2019
Between:
The Management of Bhagwan Mahaveer
Hospital and Research Centre
                                                ... Petitioner
                           And

The Chairman/Industrial Tribunal-II and another
                                              ... Respondents

       JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 06.12.2022

    THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA



1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers    :    yes
   may be allowed to see the Judgment?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
   marked to Law Reporters/Journals?       :    yes

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to
   see the fair copy of the Judgment?      :    yes




                                   ____________________
                                    SUREPALLI NANDA, J
                                                            WP_10895_2020
                                2                                   SN,J




     THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

                   W.P. No. 10895 of 2019
% 06.12.2022

Between:

# The Management of Bhagwan Mahaveer
Hospital and Research Centre

                                                    ... Petitioner
     and
$ The Chairman/Industrial Tribunal-II and another

                                                .....Respondents


< Gist:
> Head Note:



! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri G.Vidya Sagar on behalf of
                               Mr M.Vijay Kumar Goud

^Counsel for the Respondents: G.P. for Labour



? Cases Referred:
1. 2006 II LLJ page 223
2. 2002(2) ALD (DB) page 462
3. 2009 (2) SCC 177
4. 2004 (9) SCALE page 479
5. AIR 1967 SC 469
6. 1962 SC (1) LLJ 227
7. 1979 (38) FLR 415
8. AIR 1964 SC 477
                                                               WP_10895_2020
                                  3                                    SN,J




     THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

                     W.P. No. 10895 of 2019
ORDER:

Heard Sri G.Vidyasagar, learned senior counsel

appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel for the

respondents.

2. This writ petition is filed to issue an appropriate writ or

order or direction or a Writ of certiorari and to quash and set

aside the award passed by the 1st respondent, Industrial

Tribunal Court - II, Hyderabad, in I.D.No.3 of 2013, dated

04.11.2019 which was published in Gazette of Government of

Telangana vide G.O.Rt No.145, dated 18.03.2020 and to allow

this writ petition with costs.

3) The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:

a) The petitioner is one of the oldest charitable hospital

providing Medical services on 'no profit and no loss basis' and

managed by a Trust by name Bhagawan Mahavir Memorial

Trust.

b) The 2nd respondent union on behalf of nine employees,

who are working as Assistant Technicians in the petitioner's WP_10895_2020 4 SN,J

hospital made a claim before the conciliation officer, claiming

themselves as Regular Technicians, and the said issue was

referred to the Industrial Tribunal - 2, Hyderabad as follows:

"A. Whether the Management is justified in treating the technicians as Assistants Technicians on the guise of producing the Registration Certificates from the Para Medical Board?

B. Whether the provisions of the A.P.Para Medical Board Act, 2006 can have retrospective effect on the employees who are working prior to what act, if so;

C. What kind of relief the employees effected are entitled for?

c) The Tribunal only had to decide whether the

management is justified in treating the technicians as

Assistant Technicians and what kind of relief the employees

are entitled for. There is no mention about the applicability of

Minimum Wages Act and G.O.Ms.No.68, dated 08.12.2011 to

the nine employees and that the Tribunal totally misdirected

itself and adjudicated the issue and directed the petitioner to

pay difference of wages as per the said Minimum Wages G.O.

Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is contrary to the

reference made to the said Court.

PERUSED THE RECORD:

WP_10895_2020 5 SN,J

4. The Government of Andhra Pradesh Labour

Department has referred the matter to the Tribunal

vide Proceedings No. B/3567/2013 dated: 30.09.2013

for adjudication with the following issues.

1. Whether the Management is justified in treating the technicians as Assistants Technicians on the guise of producing the Registration Certificates from the Para Medical Board.?

2. Whether the Provisions of the A.P.Para Medical Board Act, 2006 can have retrospective effect on the employees who are working prior to that Act if so;

3. What kind of relief the employees effected are entitled for?

5. The impugned order dated 04.11.2019 passed in

I.D.No.3 of 2013, at para 16 reads as under:

"The case was referred by Joint Commissioner of Labour (Twin Cities), Hyderabad, for adjudication under Section 10(1) (c) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and referred the matter for consideration with the following issued:

1) Whether the provisions of the A.P.Para Medical Board Act, 2006 can have retrospective effect on the employees who working prior to that Act?

2) Whether the petitioners' are entitled for minimum wages par with Lab Technicians as per G.O.Ms.No.68 of 2011? What kind of relief the employees effected are entitled for?

3) Whether the management is justified in treating the technicians as assistant's technicians on the guise of producing registration certificate from the Para Medical Board?

6. The observations in the relevant paras of the

order impugned dated 04.11.2019 passed in I.D.No.3 of

2013, which clearly indicate that the observations and WP_10895_2020 6 SN,J

the findings are beyond the scope of reference are as

follows:

29 In view of evidence on one hand, it is necessary to extract the minimum wages directed to pay following employees as per G.O.Ms.No.68 Labour Employment Training and Factories (LAB-ID ) 8.12.2011 came into effect from 19.03.2012.

32. As plain reading of Act, The A.P.Para Medical Board Act came into effect from the date of publication i.e. 25.09.2006 like wise G.O.Ms.No.68 is issued for providing minimum wages to employees who are working as Lab Technicians, Operation Theatre Technicians etc., which includes a person having experience as Compounder having not less than 5 years experience. As per note of annexure to G.O Clause (1) if any categories employed in employment left out they should not be paid less than minimum wages fixed in the category of workers, being same and similar category of work in this employment. It clearly shows that if any person attended similar work having 5 years experience also eligible to get minimum wages par with the persons who is working as lab technicians from the date of notification i.e. from19.03.2012 or if he acquire such qualification subsequent to notification.

37. On the other hand, in G.O.Ms.No.68 clearly mentioned that any person who is discharging similar duties is also entitled to get minimum wages par with lab technicians. As per evidence of WW1 and MW1 and MW2 all claimants are working as Operation Theatre Technicians, Lab Technicians etc.. Apart from above MW1 and MW2 are admitted that Assistant Lab Technicians is higher post than Compounder and all are completed 5 years service in their hospital. In view of evidence on one hand, whether the G.O.Ms.No.68 is having retrospective effect is point for consideration before this Court. On plain reading of G.O. it is given effect from 19.03.2012. Not specifically mentioned that the said G.O is having retrospective effect. Therefore, if any person completed 5 years as on the date of G.O.Ms.No.68 i.e., 19.03.2012, he will be eligible to draw minimum wages as specified in Group WP_10895_2020 7 SN,J

D of said G.O. from the date of notification and it is only a prospective. If any person joined in services prior to said G.O. and completed 5 years as compounder subsequent to the said G.O., he will get minimum wages from the date of completion of their service of 5 years. Likewise, if any person acquired qualification as Lab Technician under Andhra Pradesh Para Medical Board Act, 2006, he will also get benefit of minimum wages, from the date of acquire such qualification and if his pay is less prior to existence of G.O.Ms.No.68 or if he get more pay the same will be continued as per Annexure note of said G.O.

39. In view of my foregoing discussion, A.P.Para Medical Board Act, 2006 is only having prospective effect but not retrospective effect. The claimants are entitled for minimum wages as per G.O.Ms.No.68 from the date of effect of such G.O. i.e., 19.03.2012 i.e., from the date of publication and it is also applies in prospective nature.

42. In the result, the petitioners are entitled for wages and allowances as per G.O.Ms.No.68 with effect from 19.03.2012. Hence, respondent is directed to pay difference of wages and allowance par with the wages mentioned in Group D of G.O i.e. par with Lab Technicians from 19.03.2012 within two months from the date of publication of award.

7. In the judgment reported in 2006 II LLJ page 223

between State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v Om Prakash

Sharma, at paras 3, 8 and 14 it is observed as under:

"3. The respondent herein was a casual workman. He had worked with the appellant Bank from August 6, 1994 till November 17, 1994. His services were terminated. An industrial dispute was raised by him culminating in a reference made by the Appropriate Government to the Industrial Tribunal which reads as under:

"Whether the action of the management of SBBJ, Jaipur is justified in terminating the services of WP_10895_2020 8 SN,J

Workman Om Prakash Sharma S/o Sita Ram Sharma w.e.f November 19, 1994 and employing another junior workman Shri Vijay Kumar in his place without giving any opportunity of employment in violation of Section 25-H of ID Act. 1947? If not, what relief the workman is entitled ?

8. The Industrial Court, it is well settled, derives its jurisdiction from the reference. See Mukand Ltd. v. Mukand Staff and Officers' Association, 2004 (10) SCC 460 2004-II-LLJ-327. The reference made to the CGIT specifically refers to only one question, i.e., "Whether any illegality was committed by the management in giving appointment to one Vijay Kumar in place of the respondent in violation of Section 25-H of ID Act, 1947 ?" Non-maintenance of any register in terms of Rule 77 of the ID Rules was, thus, not in issue.

14. In the instant case, the Award of the Labour Court suffers from an illegality, which appears on the face of the record. The jurisdiction of the Labour Court emanated from the order of the reference. It could not have passed an order going beyond the terms of the reference. While passing the Award, if the Labour Court exceeds its jurisdiction, the Award must be held to be suffering from a jurisdictional error. It was capable of being corrected by the High Court in exercise of its power of judicial review. The High Court, therefore, clearly fell in error in refusing to exercise its jurisdiction. The Award and the judgment of the High Court, therefore, cannot be sustained. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the High Court is set aside. The award is set aside to the extent of order of reinstatement with back wages. The writ petition filed by the appellant in the High Court is, thus, allowed.

8. In the judgment reported in 2002(2) ALD (DB) page

462 between Senior Regional Manager, Hindustan

Petroleum Corporation Limited, Secunderabad and WP_10895_2020 9 SN,J

another v Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-I,

Hyderabad and another, at para 8 it is observed as under:

"8. The functions of an Industrial Tribunal are quasi- judicial but it is not a civil Court. It has not the inherent power to decide any of the disputes raised by the parties in their pleadings. Its jurisdiction is limited and restricted only to the issues referred to it by the appropriate Government by an order of reference. In other words, the Tribunal has to function within the limits imposed upon it by the Act and has to act according to its provisions. In adjudicating upon a 'industrial dispute', the Tribunal cannot arrogate to itself powers which the Legislature alone can confer or do something which the Legislature has not permitted to be done. In R.S. Ramdayal Ghasiram Oil Mills v. Labour Appellate Tribunal, [1963] II LLJ 65 (SC) and West Bengal Press Workers and Employees Union v. Eighth Industrial Tribunal, [1974] II LLJ 404 (SC), the Supreme Court held that the Industrial Tribunal acquires jurisdiction to adjudicate upon an 'industrial dispute' only after it has been referred to it. In other words, without such a reference, the Tribunal does not get any such jurisdiction to adjudicate upon any dispute. Wherein an order referred an industrial dispute to a Tribunal under Section 10(1) of the Act, the 'appropriate Government' has specified the points of dispute for adjudication, the Tribunal shall confine the adjudication to those points 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 adjudication to the points specifically mentioned and anything which is incidental thereto. It is well settled that the order of reference by which an industrial dispute is referred to the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal for adjudication gives jurisdiction to the Labour Court or the Tribunal, as the case may be, to deal with the merits of dispute. This position is well settled by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jhagrakhand Collieries (P) Limited v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal, [1960] II LLJ (SC), and several other judgments to follow. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal being limited to the matters referred to it by the Government, it would have no right to travel outside the reference, and proceed to adjudicate the matters not referred to it. This position is also well settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court including Gouri Sankar Chatterjee v. Texmaco WP_10895_2020 10 SN,J

Limited and Ors., 2000 (8) Supreme 519, Workmen of British India Corporation Limited v. British India Corporation Limited, [1965] 11 LLJ 433 (SC), Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company Limited v. Its Workmen, [1967] I LLJ 423, the Jaipur Udyog Limited v. The Cement Work Karmachari Sangh, Sahu Nagar, [1972] I LLJ 437, and Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company of India Private Limited v. Workmen, [1981] II LLJ 218, to cite a few.

9. In 2009 (2) SCC 177 - U.R. Birupakashpa Vs. Sarva

Mangla, it has been conclusively held that issues should not be

framed without assigning reason and without giving reasonable

opportunity of hearing and the same has been held to be

unsustainable in the eyes of law as it suffers from jurisdictional

error. In 2006 (6) SCALE page 107 at paragraph 14, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court had held as under:-

"14. In the instant case, the Award of the Labour Court suffers from an illegality which appears on the face of the record. The jurisdiction of the Labour Court emanated from the order of reference. It could not have passed an order going beyond the terms of the reference. While passing the award, if the Labour Court exceeds its jurisdiction the Award must be held to be suffering from a jurisdictional error. It was capable of being corrected by the High Court in exercise of its power of judicial review. The High Court, therefore, clearly fell in error in refusing to exercise its jurisdiction. The Award and the judgment of the High Court, therefore, cannot be sustained. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the High Court is set aside.

                                                                 WP_10895_2020
                                 11                                      SN,J

The award is set aside to the extent of order of reinstatement."

10. Again in a judgment reported in 2004 (9) SCALE

page 479, the Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraph 34

held as under:-

"....................Furthermore, the Labour Court having derived its jurisdiction from the Reference made by the State Government, it was bound to act within the four-corners thereof. It could not enlarge the scope of reference nor could deviate there from. A demand which was not raised at the time of raising the dispute could not have been gone in by the Labour Court being not the subject matter thereof."

6. It is also a settled law that maintainability of a reference can certainly be agitated since it refers to a jurisdictional issue and the same is always subject to judicial review by the High Court under its Writ Jurisdiction and this issue is no more res- integra and has been upheld time and again by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In 2000 (2) SCC 455 Negungadi Bank Ltd. V K.P.Madhavan Kutty the Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraph 8 held as under:-

"It was submitted by the respondent that once a reference has been made under Section 10 of the Act a Labour Court has to decide the same and the High Court in writ jurisdiction cannot interfere in the proceedings of the Labour Court. That is not a correct proposition to state. An administrative order which does not take into consideration statutory requirement or travels outside that is certainly subject to judicial review, limited though it might be. The High Court can exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution to consider the question of the very jurisdiction of the Labour Court."

                                                               WP_10895_2020
                               12                                      SN,J

11. In the matter of Pottery Mazdoor Panchayat v.

Perfect Pottery Co. Ltd. & Anr., AIR 1979 SC 1356, the

Supreme Court has held as under:

"11. Having heard a closely thought out argument made by Mr. Gupta on behalf of the appellant, we are of the opinion that the High Court is right in its view on the first question. The very terms of the references show that the point of dispute between the parties was not the fact of the closure of its business by the respondent but the propriety and justification of the respondent's decision to close down the business. That is why the references were expressed to say whether the proposed closure of the business was proper and justified. In other words, by the references, the Tribunals were not called upon by the Government to adjudicate upon the question as to whether there was in fact a closure of business or whether under the pretence of closing the business the workers were locked out by the management. The references being limited to the narrow question as to whether the closure was proper and justified, the Tribunals by the very terms of the references, had no jurisdiction to go behind the fact of closure and inquire into the question whether the business was in fact closed down by the management."

12. In the matter of Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co.

Ltd. v. The Workmen and Ors., AIR 1967 SC 469, while

dealing with Section 10(4) of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 (in short, called the "ID Act"), the Supreme

Court held as under:

"10. Proceeding in the order in which the arguments were addressed, we propose to deal with issues 3 and 4 first.

                                                              WP_10895_2020
                                13                                    SN,J

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."

11. 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 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:"

12. "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.

13. Taking into consideration the scope of Section 10(4) of

the ID Act and the construction thereof, the Supreme Court, WP_10895_2020 14 SN,J

way back in 1962, in the matter of Express Newspapers

Ltd. v. Their Workers and Staff & Ors., reported in 1962

SC (1) LLJ 227, held as under:

"It is hardly necessary to emphasise that since the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal in dealing with industrial disputes referred to it under S.10 is limited by S.10 (4) to the points specifically mentioned in the reference and matters incidental thereto, the appropriate Government should frame the relevant orders of reference carefully and the questions which are intended to be tried by the Industrial Tribunal should be so worded as to leave no scope for ambiguity or controversy. An order of reference hastily drawn or drawn in a casual manner often gives rise to unnecessary disputes and thereby prolongs the life of industrial adjudication which must always be avoided."

14. This Court in a case M/s. Delhi Press v. K.S. Sidhu,

reported in 1979 (38) FLR 415, held that:

"...the interference by High Court can be on grounds of defects of jurisdiction, violation of the principles of natural justice or any error of law apparent on the face of the record. .....The High Court will interfere only if the finding is based on no evidence or is such that it could not have been arrived at on the basis of the material before it."

15. In the case titled as Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radha

Krishan, reposted in AIR 1964 SC 477, the Supreme

Court has held as under:

".......writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals; these are cases where orders are passed by inferior courts or WP_10895_2020 15 SN,J

tribunals without jurisdiction, or in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdictions.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

16. A bare perusal of all the relevant paras of the

impugned order extracted above at para six of the

present order clearly indicates that the impugned

award of the Tribunal dated 04.11.2019 suffers from

illegality, which is apparent from the face of the record.

The jurisdiction of the Tribunal emanated from the

order of reference (extracted above) and the award

suffers from jurisdictional error. The points whether

the provisions of the A.P. Para Medical Board Act, 2006

can have retrospective effect on the employees who are

working prior to that Act, if so and what kind of relief

the employees effected are entitled for, were not raised

at the time of raising the dispute and therefore, the

same could not have been gone into by the Tribunal

being not the subject matter thereof. The Tribunal

having derived its jurisdiction from the reference made

by the State Government it was bound to act within the WP_10895_2020 16 SN,J

four corners thereof and it could not have enlarged the

scope of reference nor could deviate therefrom.

17. The error of law apparent on the face of record is

as follows:

a) Section 10(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 reads as under:

"(4) Where in an order referring an industrial dispute to (a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal) under this section or in a subsequent orer, the appropriate Government has specified the points of dispute for adjudication, (the Labour Court or the Tribunal or the National Tribunal, as the case my be) shall confine its adjudication to those points and matters incidental thereto."

b) An examination of Section 10(4) of the ID Act clearly shows that the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal is required to confine its adjudication to the points of disputes referred and the matter incidental thereto.

c) It is not in dispute that the Industrial Tribunal do derive its jurisdiction from the Reference made by the State Government while being bound to act within the four corners thereof and it could not and cannot enlarge the scope of the Reference nor can/could deviate therefrom. A demand which was not raised at the time of raising the dispute could not have gone into by the Industrial Tribunal being not the subject matter thereof. The Reference dated 30.092013 in this matter was quite specific in the following terms:-

1. Whether the Management is justified in treating the technicians as Assistants Technicians on the guise of producing the Registration Certificates from the Para Medical Board.?

2. Whether the Provisions of the A.P.Para Medical Board Act, 2006 can have retrospective effect on the employees who are working prior to that Act if so;

WP_10895_2020 17 SN,J

3. What kind of relief the employees effected are entitled for?

c) As per the terms of reference made Under Section 10(1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act the Tribunal is expected only to decide whether the management is justified in treating the technicians as Assistants Technicians on the guise of producing the Registration Certificates from the Para Medical Board and what kind of relief the employees are entitled for.

d) The terms of reference not at all referred to the applicability of Minimum Wages Act and application of G.O.Ms.No.68, dated 08.12.2011 to the nine employees. But, however, the Tribunal totally misdirected itself and adjudicated and directed the petitioner to pay difference of wages as per the said Minimum Wages G.O. Therefore, the impugned order is totally contrary to the reference made to the said Court.

e) The Tribunal instead of answering the reference as per the terms it travelled beyond the reference.

f) Letter No. 136/APPMB/2013, Dated 06.05.2013 of the Andhra Pradesh Para Medical Board addressed to the Administrative Liason, Mahavir Hospital & Research Centre,, 10-1-1, Bhagwan Mahavir Marg, A.C.Guards, Hyderabad - 500 004 reads as under:

With reference to your letter cited above, I furnish hereunder the detailed remarks about the authenticity of the certificates enclosed to it. Except the certificate possessed by Serial No.4, all the other certificates are not valid.

1. Md. Aizaz Khan, ECG & X-rai This institute is neither (1993) permitted by Government Deccan Medical Training nor Recognized by Institute APPMB

2. Mr Syed Sayeed Osman, LT

Deccan Medical Training Institute

3. Mr.Asra Sultana, DMLT - It is not a recognized (1996) Institute by APPMB Princess Durru Shehwar Children's Hospital

4. Mr Mohammed Ahmed Institute was permitted Khan, BBT (2005) by Government of AP Government of Andhra Individual has not Pradesh registered with APPMB.

                                                                          WP_10895_2020
                                      18                                          SN,J




                                     Please advise him to
                                     register the certificate
                                     with APPMB immediately.
5.    Ms.    Fatima   Ahrestani,
      E.C.G.(1994) Royal Medical
      Society's
6.    Ms. Rizwana Begum, DMLT        This Institute is neither
      (1998) Shoieb Educational      permitted by Government
      Society                        nor    Recognized      by
                                     APPMB
7.    Md. Mateen Yezdani, LT
      (2000)    Oxford Medical
      Welfare Society



        g)      As per the letter dated 06.05.2013, extracted

above, of the A.P. Para Medical Board, it is very clear that the qualification certificates produced by the said employees referred to in the letter dated 06.05.2013 (Ex.R.6) are neither recognised nor registered by the A.P. Para Medical Board and further the said employees are not registered with the A.P.Para Medical Board nor worked as compounders at any point of time to claim the wages under Part D(1) G.O.Ms.No.68 (Labour, Employment/Training Factories Department), Lab-II, Department, dated 08.12.2011. However, the Tribunal misinterpreted the said G.O.Ms.No.68 and concluded that the said claimants are having five years experience as compounders, which is factually incorrect.

18. This Court is of the firm opinion that the impugned

order suffers from a jurisdictional error and the

Tribunal enlarged the scope of dispute referred to it

instead of confining its attention to the points

specifically mentioned in the order of reference dated WP_10895_2020 19 SN,J

30.09.2013. In view of the fact that the reference

being limited to the narrow question as to whether the

management is justified in treating the technicians as

assistant Technicians on the guise of producing the

Registration Certificate from the Para Medical Board,

the Tribunal by the very terms of its reference had no

jurisdiction to inquire into the question about the