ORDER Tare, J.- 1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Corporation seeks to quash the order of the first respondent, dated 26-8-1966 (Petitioner's Annexure No. H) impleading some other parties in the interest of effective adjudication as per the list supplied by the second respondent (vide Petitioner's Annexure-G) to be found at page 30 of the Paper-Book. The petitioner Corporation was constituted with effect from 21.5.1962 under the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. The Central Provinces Transport Services owned by the Government was merged in the new Corporation and the services of all the employees of the Central Transport Services were absorbed in the services of the new Corporation. The petitioner Corporation originally formed four Divisions namely; Jabalpur, Raipur, Gwalior and Indore, but subsequently two more Divisions were added. The present industrial dispute mainly refers to the employees of the Jabalpur Division. 2. The third respondent the State Government under Section 51 (a) of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960, by memorandum, dated 8-10-1964 (Petitioner's Annexure-A) referred the following questions to the Arbitration of the M. P. Industrial Court, Indore:- 1. Whether there exists a case for payment of bonus to the employees of the M. P. State Road Transport Corporation, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur? If so, what should be the quantum and conditions for payment? 2. Whether there exists a case for reducing the present working hours of drivers and the conductors employed in the City Bus Services of the M. P. State Road Transport Corporation Jabalpur Division Jabalpur, If so, to what extent? 3. Whether there exists a case for increase in the dearness allowance paid to the employees of the M. P. State Road Transport Cop oration, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur ? 4. Whether there exists a case for restoring the Mail and Express allowance to the drivers and conductors of the said Corporation. If so, what should be its rate and from what date the allowance should be paid? 3. Subsequently, vide Corrigendum issued in October 1964, one more question was referred to the Arbitrator as follows:- "Whether there exists a case for payment of bonus for the years 1959-1960 1961-1962 and 1963 to the employees of the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Jabalpur. If so, what should be the quantum and conditions of payment"? - (Vide petitioner's Annexure-B). 4. If so, what should be the quantum and conditions of payment"? - (Vide petitioner's Annexure-B). 4. It is not necessary to refer to the pleadings of the parties extensively, hut the issues framed by the Industrial Court will disclose the nature of the controversy between the parties. The Industrial Court on 14-7-1965 framed the following issues:- 1. Whether there exists on such industrial undertaking as the M. P. State Road Transport Corporation, Jabalpur, as alleged by the second party? 2. Whether the Divisional Manager, M.P. State Road Transport, Corporation, Jabalpur, is not the employer of the M. P. State Road Transport Corporation, constituted under the Road Transport Corporation Act, for the entire State of Madhya Pradesh with its Head Office at Bairagrah, as alleged by the second party? 3. Whether the M. P. S. R. T. Corporation as constituted under the Scheme of Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 with its Head Office at Bairagrah is necessary party to the present dispute, as alleged by the second party? 4. Whether the M. P. S. R. T. Corporation cannot be forced to settle the present dispute with respect to Jabalpur Division only, as that would create disparity in the emoluments and conditions of service between the employees of Jabalpur Division and other Divisions, as alleged? 5. Whether the dispute regarding bonus cannot be adjusted upon, as the Corporation, which functions-throughout the State has consolidated accounts and does not account for profits and losses on Divisional basis, as alleged by the second party? 6. Whether the demand of bonus for the years 1959 to 1962 is untenable against the Corporation, which came into being since 1.6.62, as alleged by the second party? 7. Whether the services of all the employees of the C. P. T. S. were transferred to M. P. S. R. T. Corporation from 1-6-1962 on the same terms and conditions and whether under the terms of transfer the employees were entitled without reduction to all benefits, which they were getting under the C. P. T. S., as alleged by the first party? 8. Whether it was customary for the then C.P.T.S. to pay customary bonus of three months to the workers irrespective of profit or loss, as alleged by the first party? 9. Whether no payment of bonus can be ordered in any industry which runs on monopoly basis, as alleged by the second party ? 10. 8. Whether it was customary for the then C.P.T.S. to pay customary bonus of three months to the workers irrespective of profit or loss, as alleged by the first party? 9. Whether no payment of bonus can be ordered in any industry which runs on monopoly basis, as alleged by the second party ? 10. Whether Mail and Express allowances were being sanctioned by the C. P. T. S. and also by the M. P. S. R. T. Corporation upto 1-8-1963, and whet her the same were a term of the condition of service of the employees, as alleged by the first party? If so, whether their discontinuance has been illegal and contrary to the terms of take over, as alleged by the first party? 11. Whether there exists a case for payment of bonus for the years 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962 and 1963 to the employees of the M. P. S. R. T. Corporation, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur. If so, what should be the quantum and conditions for payment? 12. Whether there exists a case fur reducing the present working hours of the drivers and conductors employed in the city Bus Services of the M. P. S. R. T. Corporation, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur. If so, to what extent? 13. Whether there exists a case for increase in the dearness allowance paid to the employees of the M. P. S. R. T. Corporation, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur? If so, to what extent and from what date? 14. Whether there exists a case for restoring the Mail and Express allowance to the drivers and conductors of the said Corporation? If so, what should he its rate and from what date the allowance should be paid ? 5. The main objection raised on behalf of the petitioners Corporation was that reference as made to the Arbitrator could not be proceeded with as the necessary parties were not before the Arbitrator. It was urged that the question of bonus being a general one applicable to all the employees of the different divisions of the petitioner Corporation others also would be interested and no decision could be given in the absence of all those parties. It was urged that the question of bonus being a general one applicable to all the employees of the different divisions of the petitioner Corporation others also would be interested and no decision could be given in the absence of all those parties. On account of that objection the Industrial Court on 29.7.1966 (vide Petitioner's Annexure-F), framed a preliminary issue as follow:- "Whether the reference can be proceeded with (with) respect to the employees at Jabalpur Division oily in the absence of the employees of M. P. S. R. T. Corporation in other Regions being made parties to this reference." 6. At this stage, it is to be noted that the Industrial Court by order, dated 27-6-1966 heated the issue Nos. 1 to 6 as preliminary issues and the case Was fixed for hearing arguments on preliminary issues on 20-7-1966. On 20-7-1966 the case could not be heard as one of the counsel was ill. On the next date, i.e., 28-7-1966 another counsel was not prepared. On the next date i.e., 29-7-1966 an additional preliminary issue was framed, as indicated earlier and by the order impugned, the other Unions were allowed to be impleaded. However, this was done without deciding the preliminary issue Nos. 1 to 6. Therefore, by the said order what has been done is only impleading of the different Unions throughout the States as mentioned in Annexure-G, at page 30 of the Paper-Book. 7. Regarding this order, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the scope of the reference has been enlarged by the Arbitrator by allowing the Unions throughout the State to be impleaded as parties. The learned counsel further contended that the Industrial Court has not decided the substantial objection which had been raised on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that the reference itself was bad and the different questions could not be adjudicated upon with reference to the employees of the particular division only. 8. In connection with this we might observe that this appears to be a composite reference in which four different questions have been referred to arbitration. We might further observe that the order of reference (Annexure-A) uses a wrong phraseology inasmuch as the petitioner has been described as the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Jabalpur. 8. In connection with this we might observe that this appears to be a composite reference in which four different questions have been referred to arbitration. We might further observe that the order of reference (Annexure-A) uses a wrong phraseology inasmuch as the petitioner has been described as the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Jabalpur. Thus there can be no doubt that the State Government never contemplated that the dispute was between the petitioner Corporation and its employees, but the dispute was between the petitioner Corporation functioning at Jabalpur and its employees. The questions framed indicate that the question of bonus payable to the employees of the Madnya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Jabalpur Division only was referred for arbitration. The second question relates to reducing the working hours of drivers and conductors employed in the City Bus Services of the Jabalpur Division. It is not known if there are City Bus Services in the other towns of Jabalpur Division, but it is a known fact that there is a City Bus Service within the limits of .the Jabalpur City Corporation. As such, this question is confined to the reduction of working hours of drivers and conductors in the Jabalpur City. The third question relates to increase in the dearness allowance payable to the employees of the Jabalpur Division. The fourth question relates to resoring Mail and Express allowance to the drivers and conductors of the said Corporation. It does not indicate that the question of restoring the allowance is confined to the drivers and conductors of the Jabalpur Division only. We might observe that the authority that framed these questions did not pay attention to all relevant facts. To use the terminology of the Code of Civil Procedure, the reference is not only composite, but multifarious in nature involving mis-joinder of parties as also mis joinder of causes of action and the subject-matters. Two of the questions specifically refers to the employees of the Jabalpur Division only, namely, question Nos. 1 and 3. But question No.1 relating to payment of bonus, cannot be decided merely with reference to the employees of the Jabalpur Division only and it was for this reason that the petitioner Corporation raised an objection that in the absence of the necessary parties, the reference could not be proceeded with. 1 and 3. But question No.1 relating to payment of bonus, cannot be decided merely with reference to the employees of the Jabalpur Division only and it was for this reason that the petitioner Corporation raised an objection that in the absence of the necessary parties, the reference could not be proceeded with. Payment of bonus depends on taking a stock of the income and expenses of an Industrial undertaking and the balance, if any, which might be available for distribution as bonus. As such, the question of payment of bonus cannot be confined to a particular region only. But it is a general question relating to the employees engaged in the industrial undertaking as a whole. The second question is confined to the employees of the Jabalpur City only. The third question concerns the employees of the Jabalpur Division only; while the fourth question appears to be a general one-concerning the employees who previously might have been getting the Mail and Express allowance in the Central Provincial Transport Services, but whose allowance was stopped consequent to the formation of the new Corporation. This question is not confined to the employees of the Jabalpue Division all me. Thus, it will be clear that the questions referred to arbitration are necessarily multifarious involving a mis-joinder of parties as also causes of action. Moreover, the petitioner Corporation has not properly been made a party to the said reference inasmuch as it has been wrongly described as Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Jabalpur. Jabalpur is only the Headquarter of a division of the petitioner Corporation and there does not exist any separate Corporation at Jabalpur. The authority framing this question did not at all pay attention to these aspects and while framing this question, left some lacuna. This would hardly be a satisfactory method of making a reference to arbitration. However, we are not concerned with that aspect for the present. It is for the Tribunal to take note of these facts and to adjudicate on the same properly. 9. We may further observe that the decision of the additional preliminary issue alone will not solve the problem, because it is necessarily interconnected with the decision of the other preliminary issues relating to invalidity of the reference, as also the competency of the Industrial Court to proceed with the decision of the questions as they have been framed. 9. We may further observe that the decision of the additional preliminary issue alone will not solve the problem, because it is necessarily interconnected with the decision of the other preliminary issues relating to invalidity of the reference, as also the competency of the Industrial Court to proceed with the decision of the questions as they have been framed. At this stage we might only observe that there would be many difficulties. However, it is not necessary to detail all difficulties. 10. There is no doubt that Rule 57 of the M. P. Industrial Relations Rules, 1961 empowers the Labour Court, Industrial Court or the Board to exercise the powers vested in a civil Court, under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, about joinder and adding of parties. Although, the power akin to Order 1 Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code., may be there, the question will always be whether a party which ought to have been properly impleaded has not been impleaded and whether a party which ought not to have been impleaded has been improperly impleaded. In the present case the Industrial Court thought it necessary to implead the other Unions in the State especially with reference to the question of bonus payable to the employees of the Jabalpur Division. But, as we have indicated that that alone will not solve the problem, especially in view of the decision of the other preliminary issue about the tenability of the reference as framed. As such, we feel that the Industrial Court should have either decided all preliminary issues together; or in the alternative, should have decided such preliminary issues first which go to the root of the matter and which affect the power of the arbitrator to proceed with the arbitration proceedings. 11. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, that by the order impugned, the Industrial Court enlarged the scope of the reference by making the question of payment of bonus to employees of other division than the Jabalpur Division involved in the dispute, we may observe that it is the general principle that an arbitrator cannot enlarge the scope of the reference, but he has to decide the dispute referred to him for arbitration and nothing more. In this connection, we might advert to the pronouncement of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. In this connection, we might advert to the pronouncement of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Their workmen and others, Indian Factories Journal Reports, Volume 30, 1966-67, page 533 at page 537, which is as follows:- "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 adjudiction 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 incidental; casual; hence, secondary or minor but usually associated," In that particular case the Tribunal's power to go into the question as to whether there was strike at all at the Delhi Cloth Mills or the sit-down strike at the Swatantra Bharat Mills or the lock-out declared by the management on 24th February, 1966 was being challenged. Their Lordships replied the question in the negative and held that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to go into those questions, which were not subject-matter of an agreement between the parties. Thus, there can be no doubt that the Industrial Court or the Tribunal by passing an order cannot enlarge the scope of the terms of reference made to it for arbitration and the Industrial Court has to confine itself to the questions referred to arbitration or other incidental matters. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the Industrial Court should have decided the validity or otherwise of the terms of reference and whether they could be adjudicated upon and the reference as framed could be proceeded with. As observed by us earlier, no single preliminary issue can be decided in isolation, but all the preliminary issues are so interconnected as to have a bearing on the remaining preliminary issues. This matter is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal and it is for the Industrial Court to decide those objections. As observed by us earlier, no single preliminary issue can be decided in isolation, but all the preliminary issues are so interconnected as to have a bearing on the remaining preliminary issues. This matter is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal and it is for the Industrial Court to decide those objections. In view of this, we do not think it proper to pronounce on the invalidity or otherwise of the terms of reference. In this connection, we might advert to the pronouncement of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Management of Express News-papers (private) Ltd. Vs. The workers and others, AIR 1963 SC 569 , wherein the question involved was whether there was an Industrial dispute at all. Their Lordships laid down that it would be primarily for the Tribunal itself to decide the question of its own jurisdiction to proceed with the trial of adjudication of the question whether there was an industrial dispute and subsequently the question could be agitated in a writ petition before the High Court, which could issue a writ of Certiorari, if it found that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction. Therefore, we feel that it is for the Industrial Court to dispose of all the preliminary issues together which are inextricably interconnected and which cannot be decided in isolation. 13. Further, we may observe that the question of payment of bonus; although raised by the employees of the Jabalpur Division, the same will have to be calculated not department-wise or region-wise, but on the surplus available as a whole of the entire undertaking in the State, after considering the income and expenses as also the other matters. In this connection, we might advert to the pronouncement of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in M/s Peirce Laslie & Co. Vs. Kozhikode, AIR 1960 SC 826 wherein their Lordships laid down that the question of bonus could not be considered department-wise, but it has to be considered as a whole taking into consideration the available surplus with the entire undertaking. Vs. Kozhikode, AIR 1960 SC 826 wherein their Lordships laid down that the question of bonus could not be considered department-wise, but it has to be considered as a whole taking into consideration the available surplus with the entire undertaking. For this reason we feel that although the question of payment of bonus may have been raised by the employees of the Jabalpur Division only, its consideration will depend on the available surplus with the petitioner Corporation in relation to the entire State and the question of bonus cannot be decided in isolation; divorced from the question of bonus payable to the employees of the other divisions 14. It is true that by the order impugned, the Industrial Court merely directed the Unions operating in the undertaking in other divisions of the State to be made parties to the present arbitration proceeding. Although the Industrial Court may have certain amount of discretion in this matter, which will not be lightly interfered with by this Court in exercise of prerogative powers, we feel that the question of impleading the other parties cannot be said to have enlarged the scope of the terms of reference. Nor do we think that the Industrial Court committed any procedural error in ordering other Unions to be impleaded. The Industrial Court would be free to proceed with the arbitration, if it finds that that course can be followed without enlarging the scope of the reference or without compelling the petitioner Corporation to discriminate between its employees. It is only from this point of view that we feel that the order impugned ought not to be interfered with. 15. As we have indicated earlier, it was competent to the Industrial Court to implead other Unions as proper parties and that by itself, without more, does not necessarily indicate enlargement of the scope of reference. But such joinder of other Unions as parties does not relieve the Industrial Court of its duty to decide the preliminary issues which go to the root of the matter and we are assured that it would do so. That being so, there is, in the view we have taken, no ground for interference at this stage. 16. In the result, this petition fails and is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, we leave the parties to bear their own costs and direct that the outstanding amount of security shall be refunded.