JUDGMENT : M.M. Das, J. - The Petitioner challenges the award passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar on 26.12.2006 in I.D. Case No. 9 of 2000. None appeared for the Opp. Party No. 2, in spite of valid service of notice on him, as reflected in the office note. 2. Mr. Ray, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that a reference u/s 10 of the I.D. Act, was made to the Tribunal to the following effect: Whether the retrenchment of 27 casual workers (as per list enclosed) by the Management of D.C.I, with effect from 26.9.1997 is justified? If not, to what relief they are entitled to? The Learned Tribunal, after due enquiry and after taking evidence from both the sides, passed the award, inter alia, holding that the engagement of the workers were contractual in nature and for a specific period and in view of such nature of engagement, their termination on completion of the period for which they were engaged will not amount to retrenchment within the fold of Section 25F of the I.D. Act. The Learned Tribunal answered the reference by clearly holding that the termination of the workmen with effect from 26.9.1997 cannot be termed as retrenchment, so as to attract the provisions of Section 25F of the I.D. Act. Mr. Ray, further submitted that after holding thus, the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in holding as follows: As I find from the evidence, both oral and documentary, adduced by both parties, the ostensible intention of the Union in raising the present dispute is to reinforce its earlier demand for regularization of these 27 workers to which the Management has disagreed time and again on the ground of improbability in view of the short lived contract it gets from Paradip Port Trust. However, when admittedly the services of these workers are being utilized by the Management ever since 1983 in the work of Paradip Port Trust for the future interest of these workers the Management should evolve a method by which these workers are provided continuous work by way of offering jobs conditionally in its other viable project outside Paradip Port. Mr. However, when admittedly the services of these workers are being utilized by the Management ever since 1983 in the work of Paradip Port Trust for the future interest of these workers the Management should evolve a method by which these workers are provided continuous work by way of offering jobs conditionally in its other viable project outside Paradip Port. Mr. Ray, relied upon the decision in the case of Bhogpur Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Harmesh Kumar AIR 2007 S.C. 288 , in support of his contention that the Tribunal is required only to answer the particular question as referred and cannot go into any other question, which are extraneous to the reference. In Bhogpur Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. (supra), the Supreme Court answering a similar question, categorically laid down that the Labour Court is not required to go into the question as to whether the Appellant was bound to take the services of the Respondent in all subsequent seasons or not, when the Principal question which was referred by the State Government was as to whether the termination of services of the Respondent was justified. 3. Upon hearing Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and examining the impugned award, it is clearly seen that the Learned Tribunal though has come to a conclusion that the dis-engagement of the workmen does not amount to retrenchment as contemplated u/s 25F of the I.D. Act, nevertheless, directed that the Management should evolve a method by which the workmen are provided continuous work by way of offering them jobs continuously in its other viable project outside Paradip Port. This direction is clearly beyond the scope of reference made to the Tribunal and the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in directing as above. The said direction, therefore, cannot be sustained and is accordingly quashed. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to cost. M.M. Das, J. 4. I agree. Final Result : Allowed