Employers In relation To The Management Of M/s Tata Steel Ltd vs Their workman Smt. Ranjeet Kaur

Heard learned Advocate Mr. G. M. Mishra on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. M.K. Laik, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mrs. Mahua Palit, Advocate on behalf of the respondent.

The writ jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked against the Award dated 25th of August, 2011 (notified on 30th of August, 2011) passed in Reference Case No. 68 of 1996 by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad whereby the reference has been answered in favour of the management. But, beyond the terms of reference order has been made for appointment of the son of the deceased.

Late Baldeo Singh, a permanent employee of the petitionermanagement, has died in harness. An application has been made by the claimant for grant of appointment on account of death of her husband. Since claimant has not been provided appointment, an industrial dispute has been raised which has been referred as Reference Case No. 68 of 1996. The terms of reference is as follows:-

"Whether the action of the management in not providing employment to Smt. Ranjit Kaur, wife of Late Baldeo Singh is justified? If not, to what relief is Smt. Kaur entitled?"

Considering the written statement, evidence and argument of the parties, the reference has been answered in favour of the management. The operating portion reads as under:-

"9. In the result, I hold that the action of the management in not providing employment to Smt. Ranjit Kour, wife of late Baldeo Singh is justified. But the management is directed to give employment to her son, Sukhpal Singh, whose name has been entered in the Dependents' Register, and who is son of late Baldeo Singh.

This is my Award."

Thus, not providing employment to wife of the deceased employee namely Smt. Ranjit Kaur was held to be justified. The reference and adjudication ends. But, the Tribunal has travelled beyond the terms of reference and ordered for employment of one of the son of the deceased employee namely Sukhpal Singh beyond the terms of the reference.

It is trite that the terms of reference is the parameter of jurisdiction to the Tribunal. Reference may be made to paragraph nos. 7 and 8 of the Judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bhogpur Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Harmesh Kumar reported in (2006) 13 SCC 28. Paras 7 and 8 of the said judgment are quoted hereinbelow:-

"7. The Labour Court derived its jurisdiction from the terms in reference. It ought to have exercised its jurisdiction within the four corners thereof.

The principal question which was referred by the State Government was as to whether the termination of services of the respondent was justified. The Labour Court was, therefore, not required to go into the question as to whether the appellant was bound to take the services of the respondent in all subsequent seasons or not."

It is settled law that the Tribunal has to act within the boundary of terms of the reference, it cannot travel beyond the terms of the reference.

In the present case, reference has been answered by holding that not providing employment to the wife of the deceased employee was justified which was the terms of the reference. Ordering for employment to one of the son of the deceased employee namely Sukhpal Singh was not the terms of the reference and as such it was not within the competence of Tribunal to consider or ordering for employment to the dependent son.

In view of above discussion and judicial pronouncement, the portion of Award whereby it has been ordered for employment to the dependent son namely Sukhpal Singh is, hereby, set aside. Resultantly, present writ petition stands partly allowed in the terms of as indicated above.

It is made clear that this Court has not decided the entitlement of dependent son namely Sukhpal Singh.