R. GURURAJAN, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition is filed by the management of Woodlands Hotels Private limited, challenging the order dated 30-6-2004 passed by the Industrial tribunal, in I. A. No. 10 in ID. No. 101 of 1999. ( 2 ) FACTS in brief are as under: petitioner is a company incorporated under the provisions of the companies Act and is engaged in the business of Lodging and Boarding. The respondent-union served charter of demand on the petitioner in terms of Annexure-B. The conciliation failed. The State referred the charter of demands for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, bangalore. The said dispute is pending adjudication in ID. No. 101 of 1999. During the pendency of the dispute majority of the petitioner's workmen resigned from the membership of the respondent-union and joined another new general union called KTUC Union. The workmen of the petitioner after joining the KTUC Union submitted similar charter of demands in terms of Annexure-E. Petitioner filed an application before the Tribunal to implead KTUC Union also. KTUC Union also filed an application for impleading them as proper party. Respondent filed objections. Matter was heard and the application for impleading was rejected. Thereafter the workmen of the petitioner under the leadership of KTUC Union raised a dispute before the Labour department with regard to charter of demands. In the meanwhile, an illegal strike was commenced and the management made all efforts to stop the strike. Several representations were filed before the government authorities and an application for injunction LA. No. 2 was also filed before the Tribunal. Objections were filed by the workmen. The tribunal granted injunction for 15 days. The matter was taken to the civil Court. The Civil Court upheld the contentions of the workmen that the Industrial Tribunal has 110 power to grant such injunction as the same is not incidental to the main dispute referred to adjudication. The tribunal thereafter passed an order rejecting I. A. No. 2 in terms of annexure-J, Aggrieved by the said order petitioner filed an unsuccessful writ petition. Thereafter petitioner approached the Civil Court in O. S. No. 6094 of 2002 praying for injunction restraining the workmen from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the petitioner including the area where the rest rooms are situated. Thereafter petitioner approached the Civil Court in O. S. No. 6094 of 2002 praying for injunction restraining the workmen from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the petitioner including the area where the rest rooms are situated. The Civil Court granted injunction as per order dated 2-12-2002 including the direction to police authority not to allow the workmen of the petitioner to interfere with the peaceful possession enjoyment of the petitioner and ingress and aggress rights inside within the hotel premises including the rest room area after duty hours except for taking rest during interval period in terms of Annexure-L. Same was not challenged. Respondent filed a suit in O. S. No. 14 of 1997 contending that as per their employment/service condition they are to be provided with the quarters. Ultimately, the respondent withdrew the said suit in o. S. No. 14 of 1997 and filed I. A. No. 10 before the Tribunal praying for injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering from the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the quarters. Objections were filed and various documents were placed before the Tribunal. In the meanwhile, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the erring employees. Striking workmen formed a new union under the leadership one Sri shivashankar. Hon'ble Labour Minister called for conciliation and the disputes were settled in terms of settlement at Annexure-T. Petitioner filed I. A. No. 6 for a direction to the respondents for production of certain documents. Respondents filed a few documents. Tribunal thereafter allowed I. A. No. 10 in the case on hand. Order passed on I. A. No. 10 is challenged in this petition. ( 3 ) HEARD the learned Counsels for the parties and perused the material on record. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner argued that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to issue an interim order in the case on hand. He would further say that the hotel would provide the existing facilities with regard to stay in the matter. ( 3 ) HEARD the learned Counsels for the parties and perused the material on record. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner argued that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to issue an interim order in the case on hand. He would further say that the hotel would provide the existing facilities with regard to stay in the matter. Per contra, learned Counsel took me through the material on record to contend that initially a suit was filed o. S. No. 14 of 1997 and at the time an objection was raised by the management that the provision of a quarter is a service condition and that the respondent has to raise a dispute before the appropriate Labour court or Tribunal, that it was in those circumstances, the suit was withdrawn and the present application is filed. He says that the order passed is sustainable in law. 4-A. After hearing the learned Counsel, I have carefully perused the material on record. ( 5 ) LAW is well-settled that the Tribunal has to confine its jurisdiction in terms of the reference made to it. The Tribunal is bound by the orders of the Government at the time of referring the dispute between the parties. The Tribunal cannot enlarge its scope of reference in the light of an order of reference. It is seen from the material on record that what was referred to the Tribunal was as under: 2-A. House Rent Allowance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month to such of those who are not living in the staff rooms. The existing poor conditions of the staff rooms to be improved by expanding and providing more space, even to accommodate words with their families to restore separate room facilities to the responsible staff and by improving the existing cycle stand space at least to accommodate fifty scooters and to post one watchman to guard them. As and when food items are taken to staff canteen, the main gate shall be opened and only through the main gate those items are made to pass through. A reading of Para 2-A would show that it was only with regard to improving the existing facilities and in the matter of HRA. As and when food items are taken to staff canteen, the main gate shall be opened and only through the main gate those items are made to pass through. A reading of Para 2-A would show that it was only with regard to improving the existing facilities and in the matter of HRA. It is highly doubtful as to whether in such circumstance, whether the Tribunal can grant an injunction restraining the management from obstructing the workmen from peaceful possession and enjoyment of the staff room/workers quarters pending disposal of the Industrial Tribunal. I am of the view that the Tribunal has not chosen to notice its jurisdiction while granting injunction. The Tribunal seems to have swayed away by the contentions of the workmen in the matter. The Tribunal has also granted injunction on the ground of prima facie material of stay in the quarters. It is not clear as to whether any staff quarter was given at all. Unfortunately, the material and material findings are lacking in the case on hand. In these cirumstances, I am satisfied that a case is made out by the petitioner. Grant of injunction is a serious matter. The tribunal has to be careful in granting injunction in the light of limited jurisdiction in terms of the points of dispute in such matters, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The Tribunal has granted relief as if quarters were allotted to workmen which is being questioned in this petition. In these circumstances, I deem it proper to set aside this order and remit the matter for re-decision. ( 6 ) AT the time of arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioner would say that they would not disturb the existing pattern of stay by the workmen. The Tribunal may consider this aspect of the matter at the time of granting relief in a manner known to law and in accordance with law. ( 7 ) WRIT petition is allowed. The order of the Tribunal dated 30-6-2004 annexure-A is set aside. The matter is remitted back for redecision. ( 8 ) IN the connected matter, I have asked the parties to complete the proceedings on or before 30-12-2005. ( 7 ) WRIT petition is allowed. The order of the Tribunal dated 30-6-2004 annexure-A is set aside. The matter is remitted back for redecision. ( 8 ) IN the connected matter, I have asked the parties to complete the proceedings on or before 30-12-2005. Learned Counsel for the petitioner says that the management is not evicting the workmen and in those circumstances, I deem it proper to direct the parties to maintain status quo as on today with liberty to the management to ask the workman to vacate their place in view of their safety after notice to them. Ordered accordingly. No costs. --- *** --- .