( 1 ) THIS petition under Art. 227, is directed against the Award dated 2oth Dec. 1972, made by the Addl. Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, in A. I. D. No. 1 of 1971. The matter arises in this way: there is a textile mill at Hubli. Its management was frequently changed from hand to hand. Once it was taken over by the Karnataka Cooperative textile Mills, Hubli. Or some ground, the management closed the mill from 1st Septr. 1969. Tn September 1970, its management was taken over by Mahadev Textile Mills and the mill started functioning again from 5th September 1970. The new management refused to absorb the ex-employees. Those employees started agitation. On 23rd October 1970, an agreement was reached between the new management and the ex-employees. Clauses 5 and 7 of the agreement are relevant and are as follows :"5. Recruitment of Labour:-In recruitment of labour, preference shall be given to the ex-employees of K. C. T. Mills. However, it is agreed that no ex-employee can claim as a matter of right, any benefits accruing under Industrial Disputes Act, Employees' Provident Fund Act, Employees' State Insurance Act and other Acts, Rules and Regulations by virtue of their services in the said K. C. T. Mills. ""7. In appreciation of "workers" op-operative spirit and as a gesture of goodwill, the Employer agrees to employ 25 workmen on suitable occupations on or before 15th November 1970. The selection of workmen would be on purely sympathetic and humanitarian grounds. "it is said that as per the said terms, the management re-employed some of these workmen out of whom, on 23rd January 1975, 24 were disengaged. The management contended that those 24 workmen were 'badali' workmen engaged only in the months of Decr. 1970 and January 1971 for a couple of days in each month and their disengagement was necessitated for want of raw materials. The Union-representing those workmen, disputed that contention. It was contended that they were permanent workmen and their services were retrenched without any basis. That dispute was not settled amicably, and so, on 24th Jany. 1971, the workmen went on strike. On 25th Jany, 71, the management declared a lockout. The Government thereafter referred the said dispute under S. 10 (l) (d) of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 to, the Addl. Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore for adjudication. That dispute was not settled amicably, and so, on 24th Jany. 1971, the workmen went on strike. On 25th Jany, 71, the management declared a lockout. The Government thereafter referred the said dispute under S. 10 (l) (d) of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 to, the Addl. Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore for adjudication. The points of dispute set out in the-Government Order are: i. (a) Are the management of Mahadev Textile Mills, Hubli, justified in retrenching the following 24 workmen with effect from 23rd January 1971? (b) If not, to what relief are the said workmen entitled? ii. (a) Are the workmen of the Mahadev Textile Mills, Hubli, justified in going on strike from 24th January 1971? (b) If so, to what relief are they entitled? iii. (a) Are the management of Mahadev Textile Mills, Hubli justified in declaring a lockout with effect from 25th January 1971? (b) If not, to what relief are the workmen entitled? ( 2 ) BEFORE the Tribunal, the Union filed its claim statement, inter alia contending as follows: the present management has taken the mills on lease and has started the mills from 5th Septr. 1970. Since from the beginning, the attitude of the management is of anti-labour. The management was not giving preference for the employment to the old hands. They were bringing persons from outside to work in the mills. The interest of the workmen who were formerly working in the mills suffered. Hence the workmen raised protests. On 23rd October 1970 an agreement was reached between the workmen and the management. According to that agreement, the management agreed to employ 25 workmen on or before 15th November 1970. The management after repeated requests acted according tp the terms of the agreement and gave employment to the 24 workmen. These 24 workmen were permanent workmen. They were neither badali nor casual. When this was the position, the management all of a sudden, removed these 24 workmen including 10 women with effect from 23rd January 1971. When the other workmen came to know about it they resorted to strike as a protest against the attitude of the management for removing 24 workmen from service without any reason and without giving them any notice. The Deputy Labour Commissioner, Hubli was called to the Mills and he immediately started negotiations. When the other workmen came to know about it they resorted to strike as a protest against the attitude of the management for removing 24 workmen from service without any reason and without giving them any notice. The Deputy Labour Commissioner, Hubli was called to the Mills and he immediately started negotiations. When the conciliation was In progress, the management declared lock-out of the Mills from 25th January 1971. There was no violence by the workmen. There were absolutely no grounds to declare lockout. The lockout was illegal. The workers, resorted to strike from 24th January 1971 as a protest for the illegal removal of- 24 workmen. The strike was legal and justified. The lockout declared by the management was illegal and was not justified. " ( 3 ) THE management filed their counter raising the following objections:-"there has been no retrenchment of workmen. The workmen referred to as having been retrenched were purely badli workmen engaged in the months of Novr, 1970 and Jany. 1971. The II Party-Mills have no Standing Orders of their own. The Model Standing Orders are applicable to their workmen. The badli workmen could not insist that they should be given work all along. Since there was no work and since there was shortage of raw materials, the 24 workmen in question, who have been mentioned in the order of reference could not be given work. They were simply discharged. The question of retrenchment or removal from service would not arise in their case. The II Party submits that it is only a case of dis-engagement and not retrenchment. The workmen in question were disengaged for want of work and also for want of raw materials. The other workmen of the I Party went on strike from 24th Jany. 1971 without giving any notice. On 24th Jany. 1971 the workmen entered the mills, started the machines and thereafter stopped working. It was a sort of stay in strike. The Strike was unjustified and illegal. During the time of strike the workers squatted in their departments. They were in a violent mood ready to attack the loyal workers and the members of the staff. The management put up notice calling upon the workmen to resume work. The workmen did not resume work. The Strike was unjustified and illegal. During the time of strike the workers squatted in their departments. They were in a violent mood ready to attack the loyal workers and the members of the staff. The management put up notice calling upon the workmen to resume work. The workmen did not resume work. Looking to the violent mood of the workers and apprehending that damage may be caused to the property and machines of the mills, the management declared lockout from 25th Jany. 1971. The lockout is legal and justified. The strike resorted to by the workers was illegal and unjustified. " ( 4 ) ON behalf of the management, three witnesses were examined; M. W. 1 A. Lakshman Rao, Personnel Officer, M. W, 2, T. H. Naregal, Spinning Supervisor and M. W. 3, K. N. Gopinath, Weaving Supervisor, and they have also produced some documents including Ext. M-3 (series) which consist of Badali cards issued to 24 workmen. The management produced the said documents to show that those workmen were not retrenched, but were only disengaged since they were only Badali workmen. On behalf of the Union, three witnesses were examined; W. W. 1 M. A. Kutty, the General Secretary of the Union, W. W. 2 Pundalik Mahadev, a workman in the Weaving Section of the Mills, W. W. 3 Sadh Singh, a workman in the spinning section. They have also produced some documents in proof of the justification for the strike resorted to by the workmen. The Tribunal, after considering the pleadings and evidence, reached the conclusion that the disputed workmen were permanent workmen and their retrenchment was contrary to S. 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, since the management did not follow the principle of "last come, first go". It also held that the retrenchment was not justified as there was adequate raw materials to keep the workmen engaged. Accordingly, it directed the reinstatement of those 24 workmen in service at the rate of half back wages. On the question of legality of the strike and the lockout, the Tribunal held that it was not proved by the management that the mill in question was a public utility undertaking. Accordingly, it directed the reinstatement of those 24 workmen in service at the rate of half back wages. On the question of legality of the strike and the lockout, the Tribunal held that it was not proved by the management that the mill in question was a public utility undertaking. On facts, it held that the management was not justified in declaring the lockout, whereas the strike by the workmen was justified, Accordingly, the management was directed to pay wages to the concerned workmen for the period of strike and lockout. It may be relevant to state that the lockout was lifted on 13th February 1971 Probably on that day the workmen also resumed the work. ( 5 ) THE validity of the above findings are called into question in this writ petition preferred by the management. ( 6 ) I will first consider whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the 24 workmen were permanent workmen. It was all along the contention of the management that there was no retrenchment of those workmen, but only a disengagement. The Tribunal, however, prevented the management from raising that contention as it would be running counter to the points of dispute referred to, for adjudication. The relevant point of dispute was "whether the management was justified in retrenching the 24 workmen. " Quite naturally, the management could not contend to the contrary. Mr. Lakshminarayana Rao, learned counsel for the management reconciled himself, but said that there was absolutely no basis for the Tribunal to hold that those 24 workmen were permanent workmen. He characterised the said finding as perverse and contrary to the documents Exhibit M3 (series ). It seems to me that the contention is well-founded and must prevail. The Tribunal has not disbelieved Ext M3 (series) which are Badali cards issued to those 24 workmen. The Mill has no Standing Orders of its own. Therefore, we may refer to the definition of 'badali' under the Model Standing Orders. Among the classificaton of workmen set out in C1. 2 (d) of Sch. I of the Karnataka Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1961 badali' is defined to mean. "'badali' is a workman who is appointed in the post of a permanent workman or probationer who is temporarily absent. "under Cl. Among the classificaton of workmen set out in C1. 2 (d) of Sch. I of the Karnataka Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1961 badali' is defined to mean. "'badali' is a workman who is appointed in the post of a permanent workman or probationer who is temporarily absent. "under Cl. 3 (3) of the said Standing Orders, every 'badali' shall be provided with a 'badali card' on which shall be entered the days on which he has worked in the establishment and which shall be surrendered if he obtains permanent employment. It is seen from the above definition that a 'badali' is a workman appointed against a post, permanent or temporary, when the incumbent in that post is temporarily absent. But a 'badali' appointed as per the 'badali card' in accordance with Rule 3 (3) of the Model Standing Orders cannot claim the status of permanent workman even though the management has failed to satisfactorily prove that the permanent incumbents in those respective posts were there or they were temporarily absent. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that 24 badali' workmen were in permanent employment in spite of the management producing their Badali cards cannot but be perverse. The other finding of the Tribunal that the retrenchment of 24 workmen was contrary to S. 25f is also untenable. It was nobody's case that those 24 workmen were in continuous service for not less than one year. The conditions provided under S. 25p are required to be satisfied only in case of workmen with such continuous service, and not in respect of others ( 7 ) THE next question that arises is, whether those 24 Badalis could claim re-instatement and if sq, under what terms. For examining the question, I may proceed on the basis that the management had enough raw materials to keep those workmen engaged. Mr. Narasimhan, learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent urged that even though 24 workmen were treated as Badali, they should be re-instated in the same status and the direction of the Tribunal that the re-instatement on payment of half back wages should be worked out on the basis of their previous day's work in any month. I am unable to accept the contention. It is not only impracticable but also impossible to give effect to the order of re-instatement of 'badali' wokmen. I am unable to accept the contention. It is not only impracticable but also impossible to give effect to the order of re-instatement of 'badali' wokmen. In the very nature of the terms of employment, they cannot be re-instated even though it was found that the management hag has failed to prove the inadequacy of raw material. A 'badali' is appointed for a particular work on a particular day. He has no right to claim continuous employment. His employment automatically comes to an end as soon as his specified work or the period of work is over. He has no right to claim employment on the next day. That being the undisputed position, it is needless to state that he has no right to claim re-instatement. The following observation of Ismail, J of the Madras High Court in Crompton engineering Co (Madras) (P) Ltd v Addl Labour Court, Madras, (1975) 1 LLJ. 207, 200, supports my view although it was made in a different context:"essentially, an order of re-instatement postulates the existence of a post in which the particuular person was working and with reference to which his employment was terminated. When there was no post and there was no termination of employment, but only there was the employment of a particular individual for a specific period or for a specific work, the employment automatically came to an end on the expiry of such period or after the work was over, and consequently, there was no termination and there was no question of re-instatement. "mr. Narasimhan, however, relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Tulsidas Paul v. Second Labour Court, WB, (1971) 1 LLJ. 526 . That was a case arising out of re-instatement of seasonal workmen. There was enough evidence in that case to prove that the management was following the practice of engaging the same workmen when they presented themselves for work at the commencement of the next season. The principles stated therein cannot, therefore, be attracted to the present case, as the facts herein are quite different. ( 8 ) THIS takes me to the contention relating to the legality of the strike by the workmen and the lockout declared by the management. On this question, the Tribunal has observed thus :"on 25th January 1971 the Deputy Commr issued notice of conciliation and fixed up conciliation on the very day. ( 8 ) THIS takes me to the contention relating to the legality of the strike by the workmen and the lockout declared by the management. On this question, the Tribunal has observed thus :"on 25th January 1971 the Deputy Commr issued notice of conciliation and fixed up conciliation on the very day. The management declared lockout from 25th January 1971. The contention of the management is that the notice of conciliation was received at 4 P. M. and the lockout was declared with effect from 3-30 P. M. The 1st Party alleges that the management was clcsely watching the developments and it wss only after the conciliation was fixed up that the lockout was declared. The management, however, wants to bring in a difference of half an hour between the declaration of lockout and the receipt of notice of conciliation. It appears to me that this is all a made up affair on the part of the management. The management knew the developments. It appears to me that there is much force in the contention that the management has declared lockout after it received notice of conciliation proceedings. The strike by workmen was justified and the lockout by management was not justified. "it is not in dispute that the workmen went on strike on 24th January, 1971 and the management declared lockout at 3-30 P. M. , on 25th January, 1971. If the Mill in question was a public utility service, there cannot be any doubt about the illegality of the strike since it was resorted to without any previous notice and contrary tc S. 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act. But the management has not proved that the Mill was declared to be a public utility service during the relevant period. Against this background, the Tribunal has considered the legality of the strike and the lockout. The Tribunal has observed that the management was aware of the conciliation proceedings, and without waiting for its outcome, it should not have declared lockout. The legality of lockout was considered on all the materials produced by the parties. The Tribunal was competent to hold that view, and that view cannot be said to be perverse or illegal. I must, therefore, accept that finding and also the relief granted thereon. The legality of lockout was considered on all the materials produced by the parties. The Tribunal was competent to hold that view, and that view cannot be said to be perverse or illegal. I must, therefore, accept that finding and also the relief granted thereon. ( 9 ) BEFORE taking leave of this case, I may, for a moment, revert back to the order of reference made by the State Govt under S. 10 (1 ). It is far from satisfactory. In this case, the management was contending that there was no retrenchment of those 24 workmen, but was only disengagement for want of raw materials. The point formulated by the Govt for adjudication did not deal with the question of disengagement. It proceeded on the premises that there was only retrenchment. Consequently, it has prejudiced the case of the management. The management was prevented from contending that there was no retrenchment. It must be borne in mind that the jurisdiction oi the Industrial Tribunal in dealing with the industrial disputes referred to it is limited by S. 10 (4), to the points specifically mentioned in the order ot reference and the matters incidental thereto. It is not free to enlarge the scope of the dispute. The appropriate Govt should therefore carefully formulate the points of dispute; so worded to avoid ambiguity or prejudice or advantage to one or the other party to the dispute. ( 10 ) IN the result, the petition is allowed in part. The Award of the Tribunal so far as it relates to the re-instatement of 24 workmen, is hereby quashed, and the remaining portion of the Award is kept undisturbed. ( 11 ) IN the circumstances, however, I make no order as to costs. --- *** --- .