JUDGMENT A.H. Saikia, J. 1. Heard Mr. N. Choudhury, learned Counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents despite notice. 2. The award dated December 29, 1997 rendered by the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Silchar in Reference Case No. 21 of 1992 to the extent of directing the garden authority/the petitioner to give all the back wages alongwith extra Re. 1/- per day to the workman represented by the Respondent No. 1, is the subject matter of challenge in this Civil Rule. 3. Referring to the term of reference "Whether the Management of Silcoorie Tea Estate are justified in demoting Sri Ibrahim Ali from Carpenter's work and withdrawing the daily extra payment of Rupee one which he was allowed so long and if not, what relief is the said workman entitled to", Mr. Choudhury, learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the learned Tribunal committed an error apparent on the face of record and acted without jurisdiction in acting beyond the terms of reference by directing the petitioner to pay the back wages. It is stated that admittedly the workman's case was neither a dismissal nor removal one but was only an allegation and demand. According to him, the direction for payment of back wages can only be given in case of reinstatement when the termination or removal of the workman is held to be illegal. In support of his contention, Mr. Choudhury has relied on a decision of the Apex Court in case of Hindustan Tin Works Limited v.Its Employees reported in (1978) II LLJ 474 SC wherein the Apex Court held that if the workmen were ready to work but kept away therefrom on account of invalid act of the employer, in that case only awarding a full back wages is permissible. In the instant case, as per own admission of the workman, as evident from the evidence on record, it appears that the workman himself deposed that he was not dismissed but he did not work as he was not given the work of carpentry. 4. In the instant case, as per own admission of the workman, as evident from the evidence on record, it appears that the workman himself deposed that he was not dismissed but he did not work as he was not given the work of carpentry. 4. On the point of power of the learned Tribunal, in granting the payment of back wages, it is argued that Section 10(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') categorically provides that Labour Court or the Tribunal, as the case may be, shall confine its adjudication only to the points only under reference and the same has also got approval of the Apex Court in the case of Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company Ltd. v. Their workmen and Ors.. 5. It would be appropriate and necessary to refer to Section 10(4) of the Act which runs as under: "Section 10(4) of the Act which runs as under Where 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 specified the points of 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." 6. From a bare perusal of the provision of law as noticed above and having regard to the cited cases above stated, it appears that the learned Tribunal cannot travel beyond the terms of reference and it has to limit itself in determination of dispute to the points referred to only. It is established that while it was open to the appropriate Government to refer the dispute or any matter connected therewith for adjudication, the Tribunal must confine its adjudication to the points of dispute referred to and matters incidental thereto. In other words the Tribunal 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. 7. In other words the Tribunal 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. 7. In view of the settled legal position and also on close perusal of the materials available on record as well as upon hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner, it appears that the learned Tribunal has enlarged the scope of the reference referred to him by granting back wages to the workmen who was admittedly not dismissed or removed. That being so, this Court finds enough substance in the submission of Mr. Choudhury and the same is accepted. 8. In view of what has been discussed and observed herein above, the award to the extent of granting back wages along with extra payment of Re. 1/- per day is hereby quashed and set aside. 9. In the result, this writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Petition allowed