KUMAR RAJARATNAM, J. ( 1 ) THE writ petition is taken up with the consent of parties. ( 2 ) THE only question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the Industrial Tribunal has power to add necessary and proper parties under Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'act' ). ( 3 ) THE answer is that it is not open to the Tribunal to travel materially beyond the terms of reference. It is settled law that the terms of reference determine the scope of its power. However, where certain points of dispute have been referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication it may, while dealing with the said points deal with matters incidental thereto, and that means that if while dealing with such incidental matters the Tribunal feels that some more persons who are not originally parties to the reference should be brought before it, the Tribunal may be able to make an order impleading such parties. ( 4 ) THE facts very briefly are the petitioner-workmen were engaged by the second respondent-management through the contractors namely respondents 4 to 14. It is contended that the nature of work is perennial and directly connected with the production. The workmen have put in continuous years of service in the second respondent-management. They are not paid the same wages as are being given to the employees of the second respondent-management. ( 5 ) THE conditions of service in Cement Industry are governed by various settlements. ( 6 ) IT was submitted that the second respondent-management is also governed by the provisions of the Contract Labour Abolition and Regulation act. Rule 25 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) central Rules, 1971 framed under Section 35 of the Act provides for the same benefits and wages for the work of a similar nature. It does not matter whether the workmen are employed by the management or its contractors, there should be equal pay to equal work to all the workers who do the same work. ( 7 ) SINCE the petitioner-workmen were denied such benefits, they approached the management and they also made a demand on the contractors. The contractors took the stand that the management is responsible for payment of equal pay for equal work. ( 8 ) IN these circumstances, the Union approached the Conciliation officer. ( 7 ) SINCE the petitioner-workmen were denied such benefits, they approached the management and they also made a demand on the contractors. The contractors took the stand that the management is responsible for payment of equal pay for equal work. ( 8 ) IN these circumstances, the Union approached the Conciliation officer. Ultimately a failure report was submitted at Annexure-B. Before the Conciliation Officer, the second respondent-management did not raise any objection saying that the workmen are not the employees of the second respondent-management. ( 9 ) IN these circumstances, a reference of the dispute was made to the labour Court, Gulbarga, regarding certain demands of the workmen. The reference was registered as Ref. Nos. 265 of 1988 and 103 of 1989. ( 10 ) THEREAFTER the petitioner-workmen filed an application for bringing the contractors on record. The contractors have been impleaded in this writ petition as respondents 4 to 14. They have been served and remained ex parte. ( 11 ) THE application for bringing the contractors on record was made by the petitioner since the second respondent-management admitted before the Labour Court that the workmen are only working under the contractors. It was also submitted before the Labour Court that the demands referred to in the points of dispute clearly related to the service conditions of contract labour who were admittedly working in the management of the second respondent-establishment. The second respondent-management has also submitted that the contractors were paying wages in accordance with law. It is further clear that the second respondent had control over the contractors and the work done by the petitioner-workmen. ( 12 ) BY way of abundant caution the contractors were sought to be impleaded in the dispute. The Labour Court by the impugned order dismissed the impleading application stating that the contractors are not necessary parties. The Labour Court further held that it had no power to implead parties other than the parties to the dispute. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the Labour Court on LA. No. I, dated 31st May, 1993 the petitioner-union have preferred this writ petition. ( 13 ) GENERALLY, it is not open to the Tribunal to travel beyond the terms of reference. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the Labour Court on LA. No. I, dated 31st May, 1993 the petitioner-union have preferred this writ petition. ( 13 ) GENERALLY, it is not open to the Tribunal to travel beyond the terms of reference. It is also made clear that the Tribunal does not have the power to implead parties as can be done in the Civil Court under the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure under Order 1, Rule 10. Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act prescribes the power of the Labour court and the Tribunals. There is nothing in Section 11 to incorporate the powers under CPC with respect to impleading of parties. ( 14 ) THE only power the Tribunal has is under Section 18 of the Act to implead parties in extraordinary cases. This matter has been dealt with by the Supreme Court in Hochtief Gammon v Industrial Tribunal, bhubaneshwar, Orissa and Others. ( 15 ) THE Supreme Court has held that the Tribunal has implied powers to implead certain parties if it is necessary for a proper adjudication of the dispute. However, such power cannot be exercised by the Tribunal to enlarge the scope of the reference. Ultimately it depends on the facts of each case. In this case the second respondent-management is passing buck on to the contractors with regard to the payment of equal pay for equal work. The management in turn submits that equal pay for equal work has been paid by the contractors. To verify the truth it would be appropriate for the workmen to implead contractors if wholesome and complete justice is to be done to the parties. ( 16 ) THE Supreme Court in Hochtief Gammon's case, supra, has held at paragraphs (8) and (9) as follows:" (8) Section 10 (4) which was also added by the same amending act provides, inter alia, that the jurisdiction of the Industrial tribunal would be confined to the points of dispute specified by the order of reference, and adds that the said jurisdiction may take within its sweep matters incidental to the said points. In other words, where certain points of dispute have been referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication, it may, while dealing with the said points deal with matters incidental thereto, and that means that if, while dealing with such incidental- matters, the tribunal feels that some persons who are not joined to the reference should be brought before it, it may be able to make an order in that behalf under Section 18 (3) (b) as it now stands. (emphasis supplied) (9) Section 10 (5) has now conferred power on the appropriate government to add to the reference other establishments, groups or classes of establishments of a similar nature, if it is satisfied that these establishments are likely to be interested in, or affected by, such dispute. In other words, if an industrial dispute is referred to a Tribunal for adjudication and in the area within the territorial jurisdiction of the appropriate Government there are other establishments which would be affected by, or interested in, such a dispute, the appropriate Government may add them to the said reference either at the time when the reference is initially made, or during the pendency of the said reference proceedings; but in every case, such additions can be made before the award is submitted. Now, if such persons are added to the reference, the industrial Tribunal may in exercise of its powers under Section 18 (3) (b) summon them to appear before it". ( 17 ) IN this case, admittedly the stand of the management is clear and unambiguous i. e. , that the workmen are not employed by the second respondent-management but are employed only by the contractors. Therefore, it has become necessary to implead the contractors so that they may become parties to the dispute. It is not conducive to industrial peace if workers are discriminated vis-a-vis the payment made by the management and the payment made by the contractors on the issue of equal pay for equal work. The dispute is between the management and the contractors. The workers must know where they stand. If the management is to be absolved of any liabilities under law then the contractors are necessary parties. There is no point in raising a dispute if the management were to foreclose the options of the workmen by stating that they are not the workers under the management but under the contractors. The workers must know where they stand. If the management is to be absolved of any liabilities under law then the contractors are necessary parties. There is no point in raising a dispute if the management were to foreclose the options of the workmen by stating that they are not the workers under the management but under the contractors. ( 18 ) IN these circumstances, it becomes necessary to know the truth as to whether the workers are under the management or under the contractors and if so, what relief the workers are entitled to. This is essentially the function of the Tribunal. ( 19 ) THEREFORE, in view of the stand taken by the management that the workmen are employed by the contractors, it would be appropriate to implead the contractors as parties to the dispute. ( 20 ) IT cannot be said in such situation the Tribunal is likely to travel beyond the terms of reference. ( 21 ) AS long as the Tribunal confines itself to the terms of the dispute there is no bar for the contractors being impleaded. In fact such a situation would be in the interest of the management as well. ( 22 ) HOWEVER, it becomes necessary after impleading the contractors to permit the contractors to state their objections as to whether the workmen are really employed by the contractors or not. ( 23 ) ALL these matters could be adjudicated within the terms of reference. Consequently the impugned order is set aside and LA. No. I is allowed. ( 24 ) THE contractors are permitted to be impleaded as parties and are permitted to file their objections. The Tribunal is directed to dispose of the dispute in accordance with law within the terms of reference as expeditiously as possible. ( 25 ) THE writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. --- *** --- .