JUDGMENT M. Srinivasan, C. J —The writ petition is taken up for consideration. It is directed against the Award passed by the Labour Court on 4-6-1996. The order of reference made by the Government refers only one question to the Labour Court which reads as follows :— "Whether the termination of Vinod Kumar Walia, Assistant Engineer on 14-9-1991 during continuation of probationary period by the Managing Director acting on behalf of the respondent of his unsuitability is legal and valid. If not to what relief is he entitled to ?" 2. However, the Labour Court proceeded to frame two issues in the following terms : — 1. Whether the termination of Sh, Vinod Kumar is illegal and unjustified ? If sof to what relief the petitioner is entitled to ? OPP 2. Whether the petitioner was on probation at the time of his termination. If so, to what effect ? OPR 3. It is seen there from that the second issue was beyond the purview of reference made to the Labour Court. The Labour Court could have only considered the question on the tooting that the alleged termination of service was during the continuation of the probationary period. The reference, as such, was not challenged by the third respondent at any time. If he was really aggrieved by the failure of the Government to refer any question regarding validity of the probation, he should have challenged the order of reference. 4. The Labour Court proceeded to consider the question of validity of probation and to hold that in view of the standing orders, there could not have been probation for more than three months. Consequently, the Labour Court took the view that fixation of the probation period for six months and extension thereafter for another three months, in the case of third respondent is illegal, and therefore, the order of termination is illegal. Consequently, the Award has been passed in favour of the third respondent. 5. In English Electric Co. Consequently, the Labour Court took the view that fixation of the probation period for six months and extension thereafter for another three months, in the case of third respondent is illegal, and therefore, the order of termination is illegal. Consequently, the Award has been passed in favour of the third respondent. 5. In English Electric Co. of India Ltd. v. Industrial Tribunal, Madras and others, 1986 (53) Indian Factories and Labour Reports 790, it has been held by a Division Bench of Madras High Court that the Industrial Tribunal dealing with a reference made to it has no general or inherent jurisdiction to cover all matters which a party might raise before it and its jurisdiction is limited only to the dispute referred to it- With respect, we agree with the said ruling and hold that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction in this case to travel outside the question of reference The only question which could have been decided by the Labour Court is the question referred to by the Government In the circumstances, the Award of the Labour Court is set aside and the matter is remanded for fresh disposal of the question referred to it. 6. It is brought to our notice that during the pendency of the proceedings before the Labour Court, the petitioner filed an application for amending the written statement. That application was dismissed on 18-5-1996 by the Labour Court with the following observations :— "This is a very trite and well settled law that the pleadings i e. either the petition or the reply of the parties cannot be amended, altered or in any way interfered with simply on the basis of a plea taken up by the rival party in its written arguments. In fact, the party may embark upon any such argument which may not be the part of the pleadings. The pleadings never contain the points or pleas of the arguments. The raising of the points in the written arguments shall be controlled and governed during the oral arguments itself and finally at the time of delivering decision Therefore, in this view of the matter this application stands dismissed " 7. The pleadings never contain the points or pleas of the arguments. The raising of the points in the written arguments shall be controlled and governed during the oral arguments itself and finally at the time of delivering decision Therefore, in this view of the matter this application stands dismissed " 7. The order on the face of it is erroneous and the statement of law made by the Labour Court is absolutely unsustainable The Labour Court ought to have considered whether in the facts and circumstances, the management should have been permitted to amend the written statement already filed before it Hence, that order dated 18-5-1996 passed by the Labour Court is also quashed The Labour Court shall consider the application for amendment in the first instance, and thereafter proceed to consider the issue referred to it by the Government 8. It is open to the parties, in the meanwhile, to settle their dispute, if so advised. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.