JUDGMENT : A. Pasayat, J. - Management of Orissa State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation') calls in question legality of order passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Orissa, Bhubaneswar (in short, the 'Tribunal') on November 8, 1990 in I.D. Case No. 16 of 1978 in a reference u/s 12(5) read with Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, the 'Act'). The following dispute was referred to the Tribunal for adjudication: "Whether the following twenty-five ex-State employees who were absorbed in State Transport Services, Orissa, under the State Government of Orissa are entitled to all the benefits payable in the event of their superannuation for the period of their past services under the ex-State?" 2, Tribunal held that the 25 ex-State employees named in the Schedule of reference who were absorbed in the State Transport Service, Orissa under the State Government of Orissa are entitled to all the benefits payable in the event of their superannuation as per Rules for the period of their past services under the ex-State. 3. Reference came to be made in the following background: Twenty-five persons who were ex-State employees were absorbed in the State Transport Services (in short, 'STC'), and retired from services of STC during the period from June 14, 1956 to February 5, 1971. They submitted a joint petition in November, 1972 to the District Transport Manager, Bolangir (in short, 'DTM') with copy to the District Labour Officer, Bolangir alleging that on their retirement they were not paid any retirement benefit such as pension and gratuity though they had put in long service prior to their retirement under the Ex-Darbar Administration of Patna and after merger of the said State, in the State Transport Services. Their cases were espoused by the State Transport Employees' Union, Bolangir, which served a strike notice on November 4, 1972 proposing that unless retirement benefits at par with other State Government servants are extended to such ex-State employees they would initiate a general strike. The dispute was admitted to conciliation which was attended by the Joint Director (Administration) STS, as the representative of the management. Stand of STS was that the issue of granting retirement benefit to ex-State Employees of the STS was pending consideration before the Government. On the said ground some more time was asked for. The dispute was admitted to conciliation which was attended by the Joint Director (Administration) STS, as the representative of the management. Stand of STS was that the issue of granting retirement benefit to ex-State Employees of the STS was pending consideration before the Government. On the said ground some more time was asked for. The Union had no objection to the prayer. On a subsequent date fixed for conciliation, the Management's representative wanted further time which was not agreed to by the Union representative and therefore a failure report was submitted by the Conciliation Officer-curn-Dis-trict Labour Officer, Bolangir on March 19, 1973 which led to the reference. Preliminary written statement was filed on behalf of the Orissa State Road Transport Corporation in which it was stated that out of 25 workmen named in the reference order, 15 had already received their pensionary benefits and there existed no dispute on the aforesaid question so far as they are concerned. It was also stated that out of 25 workmen, Prahallad Pattnaik, P.R. Satpathy and late Ujal Bag had already received death-cum-retirement gratuity and the State share of C.P.F., and as such they were not entitled to pensionary benefits, and the reference relating to them was bad. With regard to rest 7 workmen, it was stated that they served in the STS which was a non-pensionable establishment. The Government directed that the employees of the defunct STS, who had retired between the period from February 27, 1973 to May 14, 1994 shall be eligible for pensionary benefits even though they were borne under the non-pensionable establishment of the STS. The seven workmen with whom the present writ application is concerned having retired during the period from June 14, 1956 to February 5, 1971 did not qualify to be allowed pensionary benefits. They did not subscribe to the ex-Patna State Provident Fund, and as such their services in the ex-Patna State could not be taken into consideration for the purposes of giving them any retirement benefit. In terms of the Orissa State Transport Employees (Classification, Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1971 (in short, the 'Service Rules') death-cum-retirement gratuity was payable under Rule 52(a) to those who had retired during the period from October 1, 1971 to February 26, 1973. In terms of the Orissa State Transport Employees (Classification, Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1971 (in short, the 'Service Rules') death-cum-retirement gratuity was payable under Rule 52(a) to those who had retired during the period from October 1, 1971 to February 26, 1973. The State Government which was impleaded as a party adopted the written statement filed by OSRTC and stated that out of 25 workmen who were involved 15 had already been granted pension and gratuity, and three had been granted gratuity. The employees on superannuation/retirement are entitled to the benefits in accordance with their conditions of service, and it was therefore, for them to establish that they were entitled to get pensionary benefits or gratuity on their retirement on superannuation. Under the Orissa Pension Rules (in short, 'Pension Rules') if an ex-State employee was serving in a State which had pension or gratuity system, the period of service which is definitely established as qualifying for pension or gratuity according to the Rules of the merged State can only be taken into consideration while allowing pension or gratuity. If an employee of the ex- State was in the Contributory Provident Fund system and came over to the pension system either by exercise of option or otherwise, the service rendered by him under such system would also count for pension. There was no material to establish these aspects. 4. The Union representing the workmen took the stand that during 1945 the transport employees who had been working under the Private employers were absorbed in the Patna State Transport Service in which they were subsequently confirmed. The tenure and conditions of service of such ex-State employees were regulated by order of the Maharaja and Ruler of Patna State. The Report of the Administration of Patna State for the year 1945-46 clearly stipulated for the benefits of such conditions and tenure. 5. In view of rival stands, the Tribunal felt that the only question which arose for consideration was whether the ex-State employees of Patna State are entitled to pensionary benefits on retirement. The Report of the Administration of Patna State for the year 1945-46 clearly stipulated for the benefits of such conditions and tenure. 5. In view of rival stands, the Tribunal felt that the only question which arose for consideration was whether the ex-State employees of Patna State are entitled to pensionary benefits on retirement. It was noticed that the Transport Department of Government of Orissa directed that the employees of the defunct STS who have retired during the period from February 24, 1973 to May 14, 1974 shall be eligible for pensionary benefits even though they were borne under the non-pensionable establishment of STS, and thus in terms of the Government direction, 7 workmen having not retired during the aforesaid period were not entitled to pension. However, Tribunal was of the view that there was no rationale in the Government decision making discrimination between the employees of the same service in the matter of extending pensionary benefits. There seems to be no logic in the decision that some employees not entitled to the pensionary benefits could be extended the said benefits mainly because they retired during a particular period, while others were also not entitled to the said benefits would be refused the same benefits on the ground that they did not retire during the stipulated period. It, therefore, held that the benefits were to be granted. In conclusion it was held that the norms followed by the State Government in respect of the ex-State employees who were absorbed in the Orissa State Government Services after merger of the ex-State were entitled to the benefits and their past services as ex-State employees cannot be wiped out for the purposes of extending to them the retirement benefits. 6. Mr. A. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Corporation submitted that the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction in concluding that there was no rationale for depriving some of the benefits on the ground that they did not retire within a particular time. Unless the decision of the Government is declared to be illegal, there is no scope for taking that view. The Tribunal was not justified to declare the decision to be illegal in a reference u/s 12(5), and therefore, the order is unsustainable. Mr. G.C. Mohapatra, learned counsel for opposite parties, however, submitted that the Tribunal has taken a realistic approach of the matter and therefore, the order suffers from no infirmity. 7. The Tribunal was not justified to declare the decision to be illegal in a reference u/s 12(5), and therefore, the order is unsustainable. Mr. G.C. Mohapatra, learned counsel for opposite parties, however, submitted that the Tribunal has taken a realistic approach of the matter and therefore, the order suffers from no infirmity. 7. Section 10 of the Act deals with reference of disputes to Boards, Courts or Tribunals. Section 10(1)(d) and Section 12(5) are to be read conjointly. Section 12 deals with the duties of Conciliation Officers and Sub-section (5) thereof deals with the powers of appropriate Government to make reference to a Board, Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal. In dealing with industrial disputes in respect of which a failure report has been submitted by the Conciliation Officer u/s 12(5) of the Act, the appropriate Government on being satisfied that there is a case for reference, has discretion to make such reference. It has the obligation as imperated u/s 12(5) of the Act to record reasons for not making reference. In other words, in dealing with an industrial dispute in respect of which failure report has been submitted u/s 12(4), the appropriate Government exercises its power u/s 10(1) subject to obligation imposed by Section 12(5). 8. Reference is made for the purpose of adjudication. It is to be noted that Sub-section (4) of Section 10 provides that in an order referring an industrial dispute to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal under this section or in a subsequent order, the appropriate Government has to specify the points of the dispute for adjudication. The Labour Court or the Tribunal or the National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall confine its adjudication to those points and matters incidental thereto. The forum has to adjudicate upon the disputes between the employers and their workmen and in the course of such adjudication they must determine the 'rights' and 'wrongs' of the claims made, and in so doing they are undoubtedly free to apply the principles of justice, equity and good conscience, without attaching undue importance to legal technicalities and keeping in view the further principle that their jurisdiction is invoked not for the enforcement of mere contractual obligations but for preventing labour practices regarded as unfair and for restoring industrial peace on the basis of collective bargaining. It is for this reason that the Industrial Tribunals are armed with extraordinary powers and have been entrusted with duties of adjudicating disputes of a peculiar character. But, howsoever wide or flexible the scope of industrial adjudication and the power of the adjudicator may be, all the same it cannot be arbitrary jurisdiction. It would be arrogating too much power if the Tribunal were to make an award altering a statutory provision. The industrial adjudication, therefore, has to proceed on the basis of certain broad guidelines. The powers of the Tribunals are derived from the statutes which are the rules of the game and the Tribunal has to decide according to these rules. The powers conferred upon the Tribunal have the sanction of law behind it and are not exercisable by reason of discretion vested in it. In other words, the Industrial Tribunals have to function within the limits imposed by the statutes that created them and to act according to its provisions. The Tribunal is not vested with the power to decide whether any statutory provision is intra vires or otherwise. It has to act on the basis of the prescriptions governing the field. The question whether there was any rationale or logic in making the provision is not to be examined by the Tribunal, and cannot be done by it. The vires of a particular rule or provision cannot be adjudicated by the Tribunal. It is fairly accepted by the learned counsel appearing for the workmen in this Court that the rules clearly postulated regarding entitlement of workmen/employees retiring between particular periods. There was positive prescription as to the entitlement depending upon the period during which retirement took place. The Tribunal should not have altered the provision on the ground of lack of rationale or logic. It clearly exceeded its jurisdiction. That being the position, the award is clearly unsustainable and is set aside. The writ application is allowed, but in the circumstances without any order as to costs. S.C. Datta, J. I agree. Final Result : Allowed