MEHROTHA, G. J. This rule arises out of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (2) The petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the award of the Presiding, Officer of the Labour Court. (3) By a notification dated 27th July 1959 the following two disputes were referred to that Presiding Officer of the Labour Court by the State of Assam for adjudication : (1) Whether the termination of service of Sri S. C- Seal Das by the management is justified? (2) If not, is be entitled to re-instatement or any other relief in lieu thereof? (4) The case of the union of the workmen was that Sri Seal Das was working as a compounder of the Hattiali Tea Estate for fifteen years. On the 25th of September 1958 he was in­formed by management that he attained the age of 58 years on the 1st of January 19^8 and that hi; services would be terminated from 1st of January ;1959 and that he would be paid Rs. 1,600/- as gratuity. He was physically fit to carry on his duties. A dispute was raised on the order of ter­mination of his service passed by the management and the matter was referred to the conciliation Board but nothing came out of the conciliation proceedings. Thereafter this reference was made )to the Labour Court. On the first question refer­red to, the Labour Court has come to a finding that the termination of service of Sri Seal Dat cannot be said to be unjustified in any way. Alter having held that the termination of service was justified, the Presiding Officer in dealing with the second question has held that as the termina­tion in the present case amounts to retrenchment, Sri Seal Das wag entitled to retrenchment compen­sation and he has awarded for payment of retren­chment compensation to Sri Seal Das. In the award it is laid down that in case the retrench­ment compensation comes to more than, Rs. 1,600/-, the workman will be entitled to the said amount and in ease the compensation works out to be less than Rs. 1,600/-, he will be entitled' to Rs. 1,600/- as the management agreed to pay (the sum of Rs. 1.600/- as gratuity to the work­man. 1,600/-, the workman will be entitled to the said amount and in ease the compensation works out to be less than Rs. 1,600/-, he will be entitled' to Rs. 1,600/- as the management agreed to pay (the sum of Rs. 1.600/- as gratuity to the work­man. (5) The award is challenged by the manage­ment mainly on the ground that on the finding that the termination of service was justified, the second question did not arise in the case at all and the Labour Court was not justified in holding 'that the workman was entitled to retrenchment compensation. We have carefully considered the award and in our opinion the contention of the petitioner must prevail. The second question clearly lays down that if the termination of service is held to be unjustified, whether the workman will be entitled to re-instatement. On the finding that the termination of service was justified, the question of granting relief of re­instatement or any other relief in lieu thereof does not arise. In view of the terms of reference the Presiding Officer had no power to direct payment of retrenchment compensation to the workman. It is. urged by the learned .Counsel for the other side that in, substance the reference included the .power to determine the nature of termination of the service and it was open to the Labour Court to hold on the facts of the case whether the ter­mination of service in the present case amounted to retrenchment or not. After having held that the termination of services in the present case constituted retrenchment, the question whether it was justified or not was immaterial and the Labour Court was competent to award retrench­ment compensation. On a plain reading of the notification dated fee 27th July 1959. We are of opinion that the question whether the termination of service cons­titutes retrenchment; or not was never referred to the Labour .Court. The question referred -to assumes that the termination of service in the pre­sent case did not constitute retrenchment and the only point which the Labour Court had to determine was whether the termination was justified or not. The Labour Court has found on the facts that the age of the workman was 58 years on 1st January 1958 but he is of the view that the termination of service cannot be regarded as a case of retirement on superannuation. The Labour Court has found on the facts that the age of the workman was 58 years on 1st January 1958 but he is of the view that the termination of service cannot be regarded as a case of retirement on superannuation. "Retrench­ment" has been defined in Section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act as follows : " 'Retrenchment' means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punish­ment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, but does not include- (a) voluntary retirement of the workman; or (J) retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of emp­loyment between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf; or (c) termination of the service of a workman •on the ground of continued ill-health." (6) Before the termination of service on super­annuation can be excluded from the definition of the word 'retrenchment' it is to be established that it was under the term of the employment that the employee had to retire at a certain age, and, the Labour Court is of the opinion that this fact has not been established by the management. As this was not the point referred to the Labour Court for determination, the question of the manage­ment's producing any evidence in support of that would cot arise. In our opinion, it was not within the scope of the reference to the Labour Court to decide whether the termination of service in the present case amounts to retrenchment or not and any observation to that effect is without juris­diction. Having held that the termination of service was justified, the second question did not arise at all in the case and the Presiding Officer has gone beyond the term's of the reference in awarding retrenchment compensation. (7) It is then contended by the other side that if the award is set aside the workman may not get even Rs. 1,600/- as gratuity which the management agreed to pay. That cannot be a ground for us to uphold an illegal order, but we have no reason to hold that the management, when they made an offer to pay Rs. 1,600/- to the workman as gratuity when they issued the letter of the 25th September, 1958, will go back on that offer. That cannot be a ground for us to uphold an illegal order, but we have no reason to hold that the management, when they made an offer to pay Rs. 1,600/- to the workman as gratuity when they issued the letter of the 25th September, 1958, will go back on that offer. (7a) The petition is accordingly disposed of and the parties will bear their own costs. (8) S. K. DUTTA, J. : I agree. Petition dismissed.