JUDGMENT : A. Pasayat, J. - The Orissa Forest Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the management') calls in question legality of the award made by the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in Industrial Dispute Case No. 62 of 1991. A reference was made by the Government of Orissa to the said Court in exercise of power conferred under Sub-section (5) of Section 12 read with Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, 'the Act'). The terms of reference were as follows: "Is the demand of Shri Abhay Charan Mohanty, Assistant Accountant of OrissaForest Corporation for fixation of pay at Rs. 520/- per month with effect from April 1, 1979 in the scale of pay of Rs. 400/- to Rs. 750/- is justified? If so, what direction is necessary in this regard." 2. The reference came to be made in the following premises: A grievance was made by Shri Abhaya Charan Mohanty (hereinafter referred to as 'the workman') that he was denied the appropriate scale of pay. His stand was to the effect that he joined as Assistant Accountant (Head Office) on November 4, 1970 on a daily wage of Rs. 870. Subsequently, he was given regular appointment as Assistant Accountant with effect from May 26, 1972 in the scale of pay of Rs. 230-13-305-EB-20-425/-. His initial pay was fixed at Rs. 230/- with effect from May 24, 1973 at the rate of Rs. 15/- per annum. He was accordingly given annual increment on May 24, 1973, May 24, 1974, and May 24, 1975. The scales of pay of different categories of employees of the management were revised with effect from January 1, 1975, The workmen exercised option to come over to the revised scale from January 1, 1975. He signed in the pay fixation statement and his pay scale was revised at Rs. 375-10-425-EB-15-500-EB-20-620/-. His initial pay was fixed at Rs. 440/- with effect from January 1, 1975, and his annual increment fell due from May 1, 1976. The annual increments at the rate of Rs. 15/- were allowed to him on May 1, 1976, May 1, 1977 and May 1, 1978. He was required to cross the efficiency Bar at the stage of Rs. 500/-. On May 1, 1979 the pay of the workman became Rs. 500/-and under the pay fixation scale he became entitled to receive Rs. 15/- were allowed to him on May 1, 1976, May 1, 1977 and May 1, 1978. He was required to cross the efficiency Bar at the stage of Rs. 500/-. On May 1, 1979 the pay of the workman became Rs. 500/-and under the pay fixation scale he became entitled to receive Rs. 520/- as initial pay on April 1, 1979. The management revised the pay structure of the cadre and introduced a new scale of pay of Rs. 400-20-490-EB-25-690-30-750/- with effect from April 1, 1979. An office order to that effect was issued on June 20, 1978. Since the workman was getting Rs. 500/- on May 1, 1978 his initial pay in the new pay scale remained Rs. 500/-, and in the normal course his annual increment fell due on May 1, 1979. Crossing of Efficiency Bar became necessary to allow the workman another increment at the rate of Rs. 20/-. Though the management could have sanctioned his Efficiency Bar, he was not allowed to come over to the scale of Rs. 520/- per month on May 1, 1979. The management allowed him to draw Rs. 520/- with effect from May 1, 1979 by issuing office order dated November 8, 1981. He made several representations but nothing fruitful came out. It was his grievance that the management could have allowed the scale of pay with one increment giving pay protection and he could have been paid the revised rate with one increment, and therefore, his initial pay should have been fixed at Rs. 540/- on May 1, 1979. The office order dated December 8, 1981 issued by the management is clearly violative of the pay fixation principles. Denial of the benefits was due to the fact that he was Vice-President of Orissa Forest Development Corporation Shramik Sangha. His claim was that he was entitled to receive Rs. 520/- from April 1, 1979 and Rs. 540/- from May 1, 1979 with consequential benefits. The Management took the stand that the scale of pay of Rs. 400-20-490-EB-25-690-30-750/- did not exist as on April 1, 1979, and therefore, the workman was not entitled to get Rs. 520/- with effect from April 1, 1979. He has raised the dispute after the age of superannuation. He was not regularised in service from April 13, 1972. The Management took the stand that the scale of pay of Rs. 400-20-490-EB-25-690-30-750/- did not exist as on April 1, 1979, and therefore, the workman was not entitled to get Rs. 520/- with effect from April 1, 1979. He has raised the dispute after the age of superannuation. He was not regularised in service from April 13, 1972. The pay scale of Assistant Accountant was not revised in the year 1976, and the workman was given regular appointment only with effect from May 24, 1972 when the scale of pay was Rs. 230-15-305-EB-20-425/-. He drew his initial pay of Rs. 230/- from May 24, 1972, and his initial pay became Rs. 275/- on May 24, 1975. The scale of pay was revised from January 1, 1974, and he exercised his option to come over to the revised scale from January 1, 1975. He has accordingly signed in the pay fixation statement. This is how his scale of pay became Rs. 440/- with effect from January 1, 1975 as per the revised scale of pay of Rs. 375-10-425-EB-15-500-EB-20-610/-. When annual increment fell due from May 1, 1975, it was allowed to petitioner and he got Rs. 455/- on May 1, 1975. In that scale his initial pay became Rs. 500/- as on May 1, 1975, and at that stage he was required to cross the Efficiency Bar. The scale was modified to Rs. 400-10-410-15-500- EB-20-620/- and became effective from April 1, 1979. The employees got benefit at the initial stage of the pay scale, but the workman had already reached Rs. 500/-, and he could not be benefited. He was drawing initial pay of Rs. 500/- from May 1, 1978, and his pay remained unchanged in the modified scale when it came into force from April 1, 1979. There was no possibility of getting higher pay raising from Rs. 500/- on April 1, 1979. Even in the modified scale he was required to cross Efficiency Bar from May 1, 1979. There was no grant of annual increment in the absence of any sanction to cross the Efficiency Bar. In other words, the claim of the workman was disputed. 3. Three issues were framed which read as follows : i) whether the scale of pay of Rs. 400/- to Rs. 750/- was in existence from April 1,1979? There was no grant of annual increment in the absence of any sanction to cross the Efficiency Bar. In other words, the claim of the workman was disputed. 3. Three issues were framed which read as follows : i) whether the scale of pay of Rs. 400/- to Rs. 750/- was in existence from April 1,1979? ii) has the management first party ignored the annual increment and crossing of Efficiency Bar of workman while calculating his scale of pay? Is he entitled to basic pay of Rs. 520/-? iii) What should be the direction in this regard? 4. So far as issue no. (i) is concerned, the Labour Court held that the workman was not entitled to the benefit of Rs. 400-750/- as on April 1, 1979. The said pay scale was not in existence as per office order No. 681 dated July 17, 1982. The issue was accordingly answered. So far as issue no. (ii) is concerned, it was held that the workman was entitled to get Rs. 520/- on May 1, 1979. So far as issue no. (iii) is concerned, the finding of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court was to the effect that even though the dispute was raised after about nine years, some time was consumed in conciliation and the matter came before the Labour Court in 1991. The financial benefits were to be calculated by taking workman's initial pay to be Rs. 520/-from May-1, 1979, and the management was directed to disburse the amounts due after deducting the amounts already received by the workman. Other benefits enjoyed by the workman from May 1, 1979 to the date of retirement were directed to be eliminated while calculating the dues. In essence, the conclusion was that the demand of the workman for fixation of pay at Rs. 520/- per month with effect from May 1, 1979 in the scale of Rs. 400-620- was justified, and he was entitled to arrear benefits from May 1, 1979 after deduction of all amounts received by him. His entitlement from April 1, 1979 in the scale of pay of Rs. 400- 750/- as mentioned in the schedule of reference is neither correct not justified. 5. According to the management the award made by the Labour Court was outside the scope of reference made, and therefore, is not enforceable. His entitlement from April 1, 1979 in the scale of pay of Rs. 400- 750/- as mentioned in the schedule of reference is neither correct not justified. 5. According to the management the award made by the Labour Court was outside the scope of reference made, and therefore, is not enforceable. According to the learned counsel for the workman, the Labour Court was justified in its conclusion and even though the reference was not happily worded the dispute adjudicated was incidental to the reference. 6. The position is fairly well settled, and in fact accepted by the learned counsel appearing for the parties that the Tribunal/Labour Court in exercise of its jurisdiction is only bound by the terms of the reference. The jurisdiction is confined to the points of dispute referred to incidental questions can be taken note of by the Tribunal/Labour Court while answering the reference. 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. The Tribunal/Labour Court, as the case may be, is required to confine its adjudication to the matter referred to it. It has to confine its adjudication to those points and matters incidental to them. It cannot travel beyond the terms of references. From the provisions of Sections 10(1)(a) and 10(4) of the Act it 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/ Labour Court must confine its adjudication to the points of dispute referred and matters incidental thereto. In other words, the Tribunal/Labour Court 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. 'Something incidental to a dispute' must therefore mean something happening as a result of or in connection with the dispute or associated with the dispute. The dispute is the fundamental thing while something incidental thereto is an adjunct to it. Something incidental, therefore, cannot cut at the root of the main thing to which it is an adjunct. A thing is incidental to another if it is merely appertains to something else as primary. The dispute is the fundamental thing while something incidental thereto is an adjunct to it. Something incidental, therefore, cannot cut at the root of the main thing to which it is an adjunct. A thing is incidental to another if it is merely appertains to something else as primary. Such thing should not be extraneous or contrary to the purpose of the primary thing but need not be integral to it either. See Royal Talkies, Hyderabad and Others Vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Binny Ltd., Madras. Ancillary means that which depends on or is subordinate or substantial to some other. The word 'incidental' has reference to a matter of casual nature only. According to its Dictionary meaning in Webster's New World Dictionary, it means happening or likely to happen as a result of or is connection with something more important being an incidental, casual, hence secondary or minor, but usually associated. Incidental to a dispute must, therefore mean in connection with the dispute or associated with the dispute. The Tribunal/Labour Court is required to consider the matter of reference beyond doubt, but fairly and reasonably. In other words, the Tribunal/Labour Court has not only powers but also a duty is cast on it to find out what was the real dispute, that was referred to it, and to decide it. The Tribunal/Labour Court can look to the dispute. In most of the cases, the order of reference is so cryptic that it is impossible to call out therefrom the various points about which the parties were at variance, leading to the trouble. However, the parties cannot be allowed to go a stage further and contend that the foundation of dispute mentioned in the order of reference was non-existent and that the true dispute was something else. 7. Coming to the facts of the case, and the findings arrived at by the Labour Court, the conclusion is irresistible that even considered on the broader perspectives, the matters adjudicated by the Labour Court were far beyond the scope of reference, and were not merely incidental as contended by the workman. After having given negative answer to the reference made, the Labour Court exceeded its jurisdiction to grant relief which was beyond the scope of reference. The award of the Labour Court is indefensible, and is accordingly set aside. After having given negative answer to the reference made, the Labour Court exceeded its jurisdiction to grant relief which was beyond the scope of reference. The award of the Labour Court is indefensible, and is accordingly set aside. The writ application is allowed, but in the circumstances without any order as to costs. R.K. Dash, J. 8. I agree. Final Result : Allowed