JUDGMENT : A. Pasayat, J. - Order of the Labour Court, Sambalpur (in short, the 'Labour Court') is under challenge in this writ application by Divisional Forest Officer (K.L.) Sambalpur Kendu Leaf Division", Sambalpur. A reference was made u/s 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, the 'Act') to the Labour Court to adjudicate the following dispute. "Whether the refusal of employment to Sri Biswamitra Ghuta. Munshi during the Kendu leaf season, 1988 by the Divisional Forest Officer, Kendu Leaf Division, Sambalpur is legal and/or justified ? If not, to what relief Sri Ghuta is entitled ?" On consideration of materials on record, the Labour Court was of the view that refusal of employment to Biswamitra Ghuta (hereinafter referred to as the 'workman') during Kendu leaf season, 1988 by the petitioner was illegal and unjustified. Further direction was given to the effect that the workman was entitled to reinstatement as 'Munshi' beginning from 1988 and was entitled to get consequential back wages. 2. According to learned counsel for petitioner, direction given was beyond the scope of reference because dispute was alleged refusal of employment and legality thereof Kendu leaf season, 1988. Undisputed position being that the workmen was employed on a casual basis during Kendu leaf season, there was no question of reinstatement and payment of back wages. Learned counsel for the workman on the other band submitted that essence of dispute has to be considered and incidental matters can also be gone into. 3. In view of the undisputed position that engagement was seasonal, and reference related to legality of alleged refusal of employment by the petitioner for one particular Kendu leaf season, the scope of adjudication was to that limited extent alone and there was no scope for giving a direction for reinstatement and for back wages. The part of the order directing reinstatement is vacated. The latter aspect was not even incidental. 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. 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 confirm its adjudication to those points and matters incidental to them. It cannot travel beyond the terms of reference. From the provisions of Sections 1(1)(a) and 10(4) of the Act it appears that while it is open to the appropriate Government to refer the dispute or anymatter 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 confirm 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 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 wither. (See Royal Talkies, Hyderabad and Others Vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation, ; State of T.N. v. Binny : AIR 1980 SC 2039). Ancillary means that which depends on or 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 in 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. 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, what was referred to it, and to decide it. The Tribunal/Labour Court can look to the pleadings of the parties to find out the exact nature of 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 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. 4. The controversy can also be looked at from another angle. The workman was working during Kendu leaf season only. He was taken into work for the season and consequent to closure of season, he ceased to work. Such cessation does not amount to retrenchment. Since it is only a seasonal work, the workman cannot be said to have been retrenched in view of what is stated in Clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) of the Act. Therefore, the direction for reinstatement is untenable. Similar view was expressed by the apex Court in Morinda Co-op. Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Ram Krishan and others etc., . 5. The residua! question is the entitlement of the workman. On the basis of the conclusion of the Labour Court that there was refusal of employment and the same was illegal in our considered opinion, payment of Rs. 2000/- (two thousand) would suffice. To arrive at a figure, we have taken into account the relevant period of disengagement, monthly emoluments prevalent at the time and passage of time. The writ application is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. D. Misra, J. I agree.