JUDGMENT Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. List has been revised. The learned counsel for respondent is not present. 2. It transpires that the National Thermal Power Corporation invited tenders for setting up a coal handling plant. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act and has its Registered Office at Bombay and submitted a tender which was accepted and a contract for erection/construction of a coal handling plant was awarded to the petitioner. It is alleged that the construction of the coal handling plant started in the year 1985 and came to an end in March, 1988. The petitioner engaged local labourers on a daily rated basis. It transpires that during the pendency of the construction, a dispute was referred under Section 5-B of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act for adjudication. The terms of the reference was : “Whether the employers was justified in terminating the services of 189 workers w.e.f. 29th March, 1985? If not, to what relief are the workers entitled?” 3. The Industrial Tribunal, after considering the material evidence on record, found that the services of the workers were never terminated w.e.f. 29th March, 1985. The Tribunal further found that it was a case of a lock out, and that, those workers who were willing to work and who had signed the register were allowed to enter the premises, and that those workers, who did not sign the register, were not allowed to enter the premises. The Tribunal, after considering the matter, passed the following order : “Considering every aspect of the matter, I hold that the services of 156 workmen were not terminated with effect from March 20, 1985 as alleged. However, as mentioned earlier, if the workmen give an undertaking to work peacefully at the site of N.T.P.C., the management should abide by their offer which they had made before me and should take them on work. I hope as a matter of grace they should also pay them three months wages as ex gratia so that the workmen may maintain themselves. The issue is decided accordingly.” 4. The said award was passed on 21st October, 1987 and was published on 16th April, 1988, by which time, the project had come to an end and nothing remained at the work place. The issue is decided accordingly.” 4. The said award was passed on 21st October, 1987 and was published on 16th April, 1988, by which time, the project had come to an end and nothing remained at the work place. Consequently, the petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the award by which the workers were allowed to be given work on an undertaking given by them, and also challenged the action of the Tribunal in giving three months’ wages as ex gratia. In paragraph 5 of the writ petition, it has been specifically stated that the project had come to an end in March, 1988. In paragraph 25 of the writ petition, it has been stated that upon the completion of the work at the project site, the plant and machinery and construction material was sent back to the headquarters and that nothing remained at the site. These paragraphs have not been denied by the respondents in their counter-affidavit. 5. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid unrebutted position, the workers, having been appointed on a daily rated basis, and upon the completion of the project, coupled with the fact that, the petitioners are only the contractors and were engaged to do a particular work, which had been completed, the question of allowing the workers to work does not arise. Consequently, the direction that the management should be allowed to give the workers work at the site or at any other place now does not arise. 6. The power of the Tribunal flows from the terms of the Reference Order. In Mahendra L. Jain v. Indore Development Authority, AIR 2005 SC 1252 , the Supreme Court held that the Labour Court derived its jurisdiction from the reference made by the State Government and that the Labour Court was bound to act within the four corners thereof. The Supreme Court further held that the Labour Court could not enlarge the scope of the reference nor could it deviate therefrom. 7. In the present case, the reference issued by the government contemplates the validity and legality of the order of the term of the workers by the employers. A specific finding has been given by the Tribunal that no termination took place on 29th March, 1985 and that the services of the workers were never terminated. 7. In the present case, the reference issued by the government contemplates the validity and legality of the order of the term of the workers by the employers. A specific finding has been given by the Tribunal that no termination took place on 29th March, 1985 and that the services of the workers were never terminated. Once this finding has been given, the reference has been decided and the matter comes to an end, the question of granting any relief does not arise. 8. The power to grant relief by the Tribunal is contemplated under Section 6 (2-A) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. For facility, the said provision is being quoted hereunder : “6 (2-A). An award in an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman may direct the setting aside of the discharge or dismissal and reinstatement of the workman on such terms and conditions if any, as the authority making the award may think fit, or granting such other relief to the workman, including the substitution of any lesser punishment for discharge or dismissal, as the circumstances of the case may require.” 9. A perusal of this provision makes it apparently clear that where the order of discharge, dismissal or termination of the service of a workman is set aside, the Tribunal while directing the reinstatement could impose such terms and conditions which it thinks fit, or grant such relief to the workers which it may consider fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. In the present case, the Tribunal has found that there was no termination of the services of the workers. Consequently, the relief of granting three months’ wages as an ex gratia, is, in my opinion, totally without jurisdiction. Such relief cannot be granted nor is contemplated under Section 6 (2-A) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. 10. In view of the aforesaid, the operative portion of the award in so far as it relates to giving work to the workmen and payment of three months’ wages as ex gratia, is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. ———