JUDGMENT 1. These two Rules are directed against an Award dated 28th July, 1976 passed by Sri E. K. Moidu, Presiding Officer of the National Tribunal constituted by the Central Government under S. 7(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in a reference made by the said Government under sub-s. (1A) of S.10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 2. Common questions are involved in these two Rules and the subject matter being the same, on prayer of the parties both these Rule are heard together and a common judgment shall govern these two Rules. 3. The petitioner, M/s. Bengal River Transport Association is an association having different river transport companies and/or firms and individual boat owners as its constituent members and incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 read with West Bengal Non-Trading Corporation Act, 1956. The constituent members of the petitioner carryon business in river transport individually. There are about 90 members of the petitioner association who are either contractors or owners of barges, lighters and boats of various sizes. The barges are not self-propelled, but are towed by steamers or motor launches from jute mills to jute mills, or from jute mills to ships berthed in Calcutta Port or to other destination outside the limit of Calcutta Port. Some of the barge Owners are members of the other petitioner, the Calcutta River Transport Association. On 9th of September, 1969 Calcutta Port Sramik Union and Calcutta Dock Workers Union served notice of strike from 12.9.76 and submitted a Charter of Demand thereon to Calcutta River Transport Association, for revision of scale of pay, dearness allowance, supply of uniform and retirement benefits etc. On the said demand the bargemen declared a strike which was ultimately settled after signing an agreement on 7th October, 1969 between the workmen represented by Calcutta Port Sramik Union and Calcutta Dock Workers Union and the employers represented by the Calcutta River Transport Association. The Bengal River Transport Association was not a party to the said agreement. Only the members of the Calcutta River Transport Association was covered by the said agreement. In view of the said settlement, the strike was withdrawn. But sometime later the bargemen were again on strike since 22nd May, 1970 demanding amongst others the implementation of the recommendations of the Central Wage Board for the port and dock workers in respect of Bargemen employed by the Barge owners. In view of the said settlement, the strike was withdrawn. But sometime later the bargemen were again on strike since 22nd May, 1970 demanding amongst others the implementation of the recommendations of the Central Wage Board for the port and dock workers in respect of Bargemen employed by the Barge owners. There was a bipartite settlement between Bargemen represented by different union and the petitioner and other associations of employers. As a result of the said agreement, the strike was called off and the work resumed with affect from 27th July, 1970. The terms of the settlement inter alia provided that the question of reference of the disputes relating to the implementation of the recommendations of the Central Wage Board for port and dock workers to an appropriate tribunal would be left to be decided by the Central Government. On 27th of August, 1970, a National Tribunal was constituted by the Central Government u/sec. 7(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act thereinafter referred to as the Act). The issue referred to for settlement was whether recommendations of the Central Wage Board for Port and Dock Workers, as accepted by the Central Government in their resolution number W.B.-21(7)/69, dated 28th March, 1970, are applicable to the Bargemen in the matter of wages and allowance? If not, to what other relief with regard to wages and allowances are they entitled? The adjudication of the said reference was stayed by the Court on an application being moved by Messrs R.K. Chatterjee & Sons Pvt. Ltd., a member of the Calcutta River Transport Association, under Article 226 of the Constitution questioning the validity to the said reference. The said Rule was discharged on 24th January, 1972. An appeal was filed against the said order discharging the Rule. But subsequently, the said appeal was withdrawn on the 11th July, 1974, in terms of a settlement arrived at. By an order dated 12th July, 1972, another National Tribunal was constituted with Sri S.N, Bagchi as a Presiding Officer and under sub-s. (1) of S.33(B) of the Act the said dispute was transferred to Sri S.N. Bagchi. Again on 18th of July, 1974, there was another order by the Central Government constituting a National Tribunal with Sri E.K. Moidu u/s 7(B) and transferring the reference u/sec. 33(B) (1) of the Act. Again on 18th of July, 1974, there was another order by the Central Government constituting a National Tribunal with Sri E.K. Moidu u/s 7(B) and transferring the reference u/sec. 33(B) (1) of the Act. On 28th of July, 1976, the National Tribunal passed the Award holding that the Bargemen are "dock workers" within the meaning of dock workers as defined in Act 9 of 1948. Therefore, the Bargemen would be entitled to all the benefits by way of wages and allowances which the Central Wage Board recommended in its report. The National Tribunal further held that the conclusion arrived at in the second part of the reference could not be brought into operation in the Award, in view of the fact that it has been held in the first part of the reference that the Barge owners are liable to (pay ?) (1) minimum wages as recommended by the Wage Board to the Bargemen under the control of all the Barge owners who are parties to the reference. The petitioners being aggrieved by the said Award moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and obtained the present Rules. 4. Mr. Chakravorty, appearing on behalf of the petitioner raised four points. The points are as follows : 1) There was an error of law apparent on the face of the Award in holding that the Bargemen are dock workers within the meaning of sec. 2(b) of the Dock Workers (Regulation and Employment) Act, 1948 inasmuch as the Central Wage Board itself did not consider the Bargemen as dock workers as defined under the said Act 9 of 1948. 2) The National Tribunal could not sit in appeal over the recommendations of the Wage Board and the expert committee and in doing so, the said tribunal has exceeded the jurisdiction and the scope of the reference. 3) The National Tribunal had no jurisdiction to change, modify and/or otherwise criticise the report of the Central Wage Board as the reference was only to find out the applicability of the recommendation of the Central Wage Board for the Bargemen concerned as accepted by the Government of India. 4) The Tribunal committed grave error of law apparent on the face of the record in considering the second part of the reference independently after answering the first part of the reference in favour of the workmen. 5. Mr. 4) The Tribunal committed grave error of law apparent on the face of the record in considering the second part of the reference independently after answering the first part of the reference in favour of the workmen. 5. Mr. Dutt, appearing on behalf of the respondent's union contended that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to decide a dispute on the basis of the pleadings of the parties. The expression 'and matters independently thereto" appearing in S.10(4) of the Act includes incidental matters. A question whether the Bargemen are dock workers of not is a matter incidental to the reference. Both the employers and the employees adduced documentary and oral evidence and upon consideration thereof, the tribunals came to the conclusion that the Bargemen were dock workers within the meaning of the said Act. Prior to the said reference, the employers including those represented by the petitioner entered into settlement with different Trade Unions representing the Bargemen on July 25, 1970 and agreed to proceed with the said reference. In view of the aforesaid settlement the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable and the petitioner is estopped from challenging the proceeding before the Tribunal below and the ultimate Award. The Tribunal did not sit in appeal over the recommendations of the Central Wage Board. In adjudicating the dispute, the Tribunal had jurisdiction to come to an independent findings and decided the matter accordingly. 6. The reference has two parts. One part relates to the applicability of the recommendation of the Central Wage Board for Port and Dock workers to the Bargemen in the matter of wages and allowances, the other part relates to the wages and allowances the Bargemen are entitled to if the recommendation of the Central Wage Board are not applicable to the said Bargemen. As regards the first part, the scope of reference is, to find out from the report of the Central Wage Board itself whether the recommendations are applicable to the Bargemen or not. The Central Wage Board has recommended the scale of pay of the Bargemen known as Dandies and Majhies in the Port of Calcutta. In the interest of industrial peace and keeping in view of the position of the Bargemen in the economy of Goa and Mormugao Port. The Central Wage Board has recommended the scale of pay of the Bargemen known as Dandies and Majhies in the Port of Calcutta. In the interest of industrial peace and keeping in view of the position of the Bargemen in the economy of Goa and Mormugao Port. it was decided by the majority members of the said Board that it was desirable to apply to its recommendation to the crew of Barges transporting iron ore from loading points on the river to Mormugao Port, irrespective of the fact whether they are dock workers or not as defined in the Dock Workers (Regulation and Employment) Act, 1948. 7. As regards the Bargemen who are the dock workers the committee observed as follows: 6.14.4 Bargemen : A case has been made out for the registration (or listing) of bargemen by some of the Unions. The bargemen are large in number and the bargei come at time, from long distances even from outside West Bengal; with the commissioning of the Farakka canal they would be plying still further. They do not therefore operate in the port area only, and their main function is the transport of cargo rather than the handling of cargo. Secondly, the nature of their work is such that rotational booking is totally impracticable for them. It is not that they are under-employed-they are and have to be attached to or employed on particular barges. Those concerned should however, remove their legitimate grievances. It has been represented to the Committee that their conditions of service, emoluments, etc. are highly unsatisfactory. The Committee recommends that Govt. should make an early enquiry into the matter, and take necessary action. 8. The Board observed that the existing definition of "dock workers" is too wide. The term "dock workers" should apply only to persons mainly or wholly engaged at port and ships. The Bargemen are engaged more in the transport of cargo rather than in its handling and they therefore, do not fit in with the definition of dock workers. It was recommended that the Government should make on early investigation into their conditions of service, emoluments etc. The Bargemen are engaged more in the transport of cargo rather than in its handling and they therefore, do not fit in with the definition of dock workers. It was recommended that the Government should make on early investigation into their conditions of service, emoluments etc. which are stated to be highly unsatisfactory." In 6.24 of the report "categories not covered" by the recommendation included Barge and launch owners and all other dock employer employed outside docks and covered by the definition of dock workers as given in the Dock Workers (Regulation and Employment) Act. 9. It appears that the Central Wage Board did not include the Bargemen employed by Barge owners in the recommendation. The Board found that their main function is to transport the cargo rather than the handling of the same. They do not operate in the port area only. Accordingly, the Board came to the conclusion that these Bargemen do not come within the definition of dock workers. 10. The Tribunal remarked in its Award "both the Wage Board as well as the Expert Committee presided over by Sri S.N. Chatterji have missed the definitional the word "dock workers" as defined in Act 9 of 1948 read with the definition of vessel in Act 15 of 1948. * * * We have to take into consideration the evidence and other circumstances in the case to establish that the Bargemen are dock workers. We cannot rely on the definition which was furnished by the Wage Board much less the observation which Sri Chatterji made in its report. * * * * The learned Judge 'of the Tribunal further observed. "I have gone through the evidence in its entirety and I am satisfied from the available evidence and records that the Wage Board as well as the Chatterjee Committee deviated from the definition of the dock workers as defined in Act 9 of 1948 and came to a wrong conclusion which is inconsistent with the definition of dock workers in that Act with the result that the Bargemen were deprived of their due share of wages to be paid to them on the basis of the recommendations made in the report of the Wage Board. I am satisfied that the evidence in the case leads to the only conclusion that the Bargemen are dock workers within the meaning of the dock workers as defined in Act 9 of 1948. it follows, therefore, that the Bargemen would be entitled to all the benefits by way of wages and allowances which the Wage Board recommended in their report.” 11. The Tribunal in exercising its jurisdiction is only bound by the terms of reference. The jurisdiction is confined to the actual points of disputes referred to. In the instant case, the reference was whether the recommendation of the Central Wage Board was applicable to the Bargemen or not. It is not for the tribunal to criticise the report of the Central Wage Board and to establish upon oral and documentary evidence that the Bargemen are dock workers within the meaning of the Act and as such they are entitled to the wage recommend by the Central Wage Board to the Bargemen of the Calcutta port. 12. A thing is said to be incidental to another when it appertains to the principal thing. According to the dictionary meaning, it signifies a subordinate action. Where there only dispute referred to the tribunal was the applicability of the recommendation of the Central Wage Board to the Bargemen, the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal upon the evidence adduced by the parties that the Bargemen are "dock worker" within the definition of the Act, in my view, cannot be said to be incidental to the point referred to. In my opinion, the Award went beyond the scope of reference. 13. The tribunal was conscious that the recommendations of the Central Wage Board as it was were not applicable to the Bargemen. The unanimous decision of the Board was that, the Bargemen employed by the owners were not mainly or wholly engaged in loading and unloading operation on board of ships. Righty or wrongly the Central Wage Board arrived at a particular conclusion. The unanimous decision of the Board was that, the Bargemen employed by the owners were not mainly or wholly engaged in loading and unloading operation on board of ships. Righty or wrongly the Central Wage Board arrived at a particular conclusion. The National Tribunal, it seems, acted as a court of appeal, found fault with the recommendations arrived at by the Central Wage Board and criticised its recommendation in saying that the word "wholly engaged" did not find place in the definition of dock workers in S. 2(b) of the Act of 1948 and the Wage Board came to a wrong conclusion which was inconsistent with the definition of the dock workers in the Act. In a round about way, the National Tribunal made the recommendations of the Central Wage Board applicable to the Bargemen although apparently the recommendations are not applicable to them in my view, in doing so and in making such an Award the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction. 14. In making the reference, the Central Government was conscious that the recommendation of the Central Wage Board might not be applicable to the Bargemen although the Bargemen made demand for implementation of the said recommendation and raised a dispute. That is why, the second pan of the reference was there. The National Tribunal could have come to an independent conclusion that the Bargemen are dock workers and they should be paid similar wages as recommended by the Central Wage Board with respect to the Bargemen of Calcutta Port. The Tribunal answered the first part of the reference and held that the recommendation of the Central Wage Board would be applicable to the Bargemen, as such there was no scope for deciding the second part of the reference although the Tribunal dealt with in its Award the pay structure of Dandies and Majhies, which should not have done. 15. The function of the National Tribunal is quasi-judicial but it is not a Civil Court. It has no inherent power to decide any of the disputes raised by the parties in their pleadings. Its jurisdiction is limited and restricted only to the issues referred to by the appropriate Government by a reference. 16. The settlement was that, dispute of Bargemen regarding wages and emoluments etc. would be referred to a Tribunal. Central Government referred the dispute to a National Tribunal. Its jurisdiction is limited and restricted only to the issues referred to by the appropriate Government by a reference. 16. The settlement was that, dispute of Bargemen regarding wages and emoluments etc. would be referred to a Tribunal. Central Government referred the dispute to a National Tribunal. Dealing with the first part of the reference, the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction and as regards the second part it failed to exercise its jurisdiction. Petitioners have every right to challenge in the Writ Petition that the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction or there is an error apparent on the face of the Award. Estoppel deals with questions of fact and not of right. In the result, for the above reasons, these rules are made absolute. The impugned award of the National Tribunal is quashed by a Writ of Certiorari. Let a Writ of Mandamus be issued commanding the respondents not to give effect to the said Award. There will be no order as to costs. Rules made absolute.