Judgment :- 1. By a notification dated the 5th May 1956 the Government of Travancore-Cochin withdrew an industrial dispute from the Industrial Tribunal, Trivandrum, and referred it for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ernakulam The notification was published in the Travancore-Cochin Gazette dated the 8th May 1956. It reads as follows: "Whereas Government are of opinion that an Industrial dispute exists between the management of Messrs. Parry & Co., Cochin and their workmen represented by the Cochin Pandakasala Thozhilali Union, Mattanchery in respect of matters mentioned in the annexure to this order, And whereas the said dispute had been referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Trivandrum, by order L4-3040-55-DD dated 2-4-1955 and is pending adjudication, And whereas since then an Industrial Tribunal, Ernakulam has been constituted, And whereas in the opinion of Government it is expedient to refer the said industrial dispute for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal, Ernakulam. Now therefore in exercise of the powers conferred by S.10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947) (Central Act XIV of 1947) read with the General Clauses Act (Central Act X of 1897) Government hereby withdraw the said industrial dispute from the Industrial Tribunal, Trivandrum and refer the said dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ernakulam. ANNEXURE 1. Are the workers entitled to any bonus from 1952 onwards. If so, what should be the quantum of bonus to be paid? 2. Are the workers entitled to any holidays with wages. 3. Are the workers entitled to one month's pay as gratuity for every year of service on the termination of service. 4. Whether the wage cut effected by the company on 6-11-1954 and 10-11-1954 in the wages to the workers engaged in mixing Cynamide be restored? 5. Is the action of the company in discharging workers with long service and engaging new workers in their place on 8-2-1955 justifiable? To what reliefs are these discharged workers entitled? (i) if the discharge is justifiable? (ii) if the discharge is not justifiable? 6. Are the above workers who are kept out of employment entitled to any interim relief pending adjudication. If so, to what extent?" 2. The Industrial Tribunal, Ernakulam, passed its award on 24-9-1957 and the same was published in the Kerala Gazette dated the 15th October 1957. (i) if the discharge is justifiable? (ii) if the discharge is not justifiable? 6. Are the above workers who are kept out of employment entitled to any interim relief pending adjudication. If so, to what extent?" 2. The Industrial Tribunal, Ernakulam, passed its award on 24-9-1957 and the same was published in the Kerala Gazette dated the 15th October 1957. Of the six issues mentioned in the annexure to the notification of the 5th May 1956, issue No. 5 alone was pressed before the Tribunal. 3. In the opening paragraph of the award the Tribunal said: "After the statement of the parties, the president of the Pandikasala Thozhilali Union moved this Court by M. P. 46/56/dated 30-7-56 for impleading the General Shipping and Forwarding Service as a party to the dispute. After notice to the parties and hearing their objections, the General Shipping and Forwarding Service was impleaded as the 'Additional opposite party' as per the order on M. P. 46/56 on 20-9-56. The General Shipping and Forwarding Service is represented by its Proprietor Mr. C. I. Abraham"; in Para.9: "They are workers under the contractor (General Shipping and Forwarding Service) and the company (Parry & Co., Ltd), had not discharged any one of them and no relief is available against the company"and in Para.10: "The workmen concerned were not given work from 8-2-1955 by the contractor (General Shipping and Forwarding Service). The justifiability or otherwise of the refusal of employment has to be considered next". 4. The Tribunal then found that the refusal of employment by the General Shipping and Forwarding Service was not justified and concluded the award as follows: "The contractor (General Shipping and Forwarding Service) will give employment to all the workmen concerned according to availability of work not only in the godown at Palluruthy under the Parry & Co., but in other establishments also where work is available under the contractor (General Shipping and Forwarding Service). As compensation each worker will be paid Rs. 100. The contractor (General Shipping and Forwarding Service) will pay Rs. 200 towards expenses of the union. I pass the award on terms and conditions given above. The names of all the workmen concerned are given as 'annexure'. The award will become enforceable after thirty days of its publication in the Government Gazette". 5. It it clear from the order of reference that what was referred was a dispute between Messrs. 200 towards expenses of the union. I pass the award on terms and conditions given above. The names of all the workmen concerned are given as 'annexure'. The award will become enforceable after thirty days of its publication in the Government Gazette". 5. It it clear from the order of reference that what was referred was a dispute between Messrs. Parry Co., Ltd., and their workmen, and it is clear from the award that what was decided was a dispute between the General Shipping and Forwarding Service and their workmen. The contention on the petitioner the proprietor of the General Shipping and Forwarding Service, is that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction whatsoever to give such an award in pursuance of the reference made by the order of the 5th May 1956. 6. The only provision pressed into service by counsel for the 2nd respondent in support of the award is S.18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which provides that an award which has become enforceable shall be binding on (a) all parties to the industrial dispute; and (b) all other parties summoned to appear in the proceedings as parties to the dispute unless the Tribunal records the opinion that they were so summoned without proper cause. There is no section in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which expressly empowers a Tribunal to add parties to the proceedingS.In A.I.R. 1954 Madras 369 the court said: "But in our view such power is necessarily implied in S.1.8 of the Act. Clause (b) of S.18 will not have any meaning unless the tribunal has power to add parties. Under that clause an award is binding on all other parties summoned to appear in the proceedings as parties to the dispute, unless the Board of Tribunal, as the case may be, records the opinion that they were so summoned without proper cause. Clause (a) deals with all parties to the industrial dispute. Clause (b) refers to all other parties summoned to appear as parties in the dispute. This necessarily implies that parties other than the original parties to an industrial dispute can be summoned as parties to the proceedings', "We should think that clause (b) though apparently wide in terms, is intended to take in only necessary or proper parties". and to the same effect is the decision in A. I. R.1954 Madras 686. 7. This necessarily implies that parties other than the original parties to an industrial dispute can be summoned as parties to the proceedings', "We should think that clause (b) though apparently wide in terms, is intended to take in only necessary or proper parties". and to the same effect is the decision in A. I. R.1954 Madras 686. 7. That a necessary or proper party to a dispute referred for adjudication can be summoned at the instance of one of the parties or suo mote by the Tribunal and that the award eventually passed will be binding on the party so summoned unless the Tribunal records that the said party was summoned without proper cause is a proposition that is not disputed by the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner - a contention with which I agree - is that there is nothing in S.18 which can possibly be construed as authorising a Tribunal to enlarge the ambit or alter the character of a dispute referred for adjudication under S.10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 8. What can be referred by the appropriate Government is an industrial dispute which in its opinion exists or is apprehended and what was referred in this case was an industrial dispute which existed at the time of the reference between Messrs. Parry & Co., Ltd., and their workmen, the only issue now material - issue No. 5 - being worded in the order of reference as follows: "Is the action of the company in discharging workers with long service and engaging new workers in their places on 8-2-1955 justifiable. To what reliefs are these discharged workers entitled (i) if the discharge is justifiable? (ii) if the discharge is not justifiable? As already pointed out what the Tribunal has done is to exonerate Mesers Parry & Co., Ltd., from all liability and proceed to pass an award as if the issue referred was: "Is the action of the General Shipping and Forwarding Service in discharging workers with long service and engaging new workers in their places on 8-2-1955 justifiable? To what reliefs are these discharged workers entitled (i) if the discharge is justifiable? (ii) if the discharge is not justifiable? 9. It is common ground that the General Shipping and Forwarding Service are independent contractors and it should follow that the award passed has to be quashed as one passed without jurisdiction. To what reliefs are these discharged workers entitled (i) if the discharge is justifiable? (ii) if the discharge is not justifiable? 9. It is common ground that the General Shipping and Forwarding Service are independent contractors and it should follow that the award passed has to be quashed as one passed without jurisdiction. I decide accordingly, though in the circumstances of the case without any order as to costs. 10. In the award the Tribunal has directed that the petitioner should give employment to all the workmen concerned according to availability of work "not only in the godown at Palluruthy under the Parry & Co., but in other establishments also where work is available under the contractor". Counsel for the 2nd respondent conceded quite frankly that this position of the award cannot be sustained under any of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. His only submission was that the remaining portion of the award can be sustained and does not suffer from the same infirmity. 11. I make it clear that nothing in this judgment will in any way preclude the Government, if so advised, from referring the dispute between the petitioner and his workmen for adjudication hereafter under S.10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Allowed.