JUDGMENT Heard Sri V.B.S. Negi, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Devesh Pant, the learned counsel holding the brief of Shri Vijay Bhatt, the learned counsel for the respondents-workman. 2. The petitioner has challenged the validity and legality of the award passed by the Labour Court directing that the workman is entitled for continuity of service with full backwages. The facts leading to the filling of the writ petition is, that on account of certain misconduct, the workman was chargesheeted and a domestic inquiry was initiated in which the charges were proved and, based on such charges, the disciplinary authority, after considering all the aspect of the matter, issued an order dated 8th March, 1989 terminating the services of the workman who was working as a driver. The workman, being aggrieved by the said order of termination, filed a departmental appeal which was allowed and the order of the termination dated 8th March, 1989 was set aside with the condition that past service would not be considered and that the workman would be reinstated afresh. The upshot of the appellate order was that the workman would be reinstated but the past service would be forfeited. 3. Notwithstanding the passing of the appellate order, it transpires that the petitioner raised an industrial dispute with regard to the validity and legality of the award. The State Govt. by an order dated 3rd May, 1991 referred the matter for adjudication before the Labour Court. The terms of the reference order is somewhat like this :- “Whether the petitioner was justified in terminating the services of the workman, driver Nawab Mohammad, w.e.f. 8th march, 1989? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled to?” 4. Before the Labour Court, an objection was raised by the petitioner to the effect that the reference order cannot be answered in the affirmative, in much as, the departmental appellate authority had set aside the order of termination of the workman and that the workman has already been reinstated in service. Inspite of this objection, the Labour Court rejected the contention of the petitioner and proceeded to decide the matter on merit concluding that the order of termination was wholly illegal and consequently, set aside the order of termination directing that the past benefits including arrears of salary would be payable to the workman. Inspite of this objection, the Labour Court rejected the contention of the petitioner and proceeded to decide the matter on merit concluding that the order of termination was wholly illegal and consequently, set aside the order of termination directing that the past benefits including arrears of salary would be payable to the workman. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said award, has filed the present writ petition. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length, this Court is of the opinion that the award passed by the Labour Court cannot be sustained. It is settled law that the Labour Court gets the jurisdiction on the basis of the reference made by the State Government. The Labour Court cannot enlarge the scope of the reference and is confined to the dispute indicated in the reference order. The Supreme Court in the case of The Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. The Workmen and others, AIR 1967 SC 469 has held that the Tribunal has to confine its decision only to the question which was enumerated in the reference order and could not enlarge the scope of its jurisdiction. In the said case, the terms of the reference order was with regard to the legality and justification of the strike and lock out in a particular mill on a particular date. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal could not enlarge the scope of the reference order and decide as to whether there was no strike and lock out at all. 6. In the aforesaid case, the dispute before the Labour Court was with regard to the validity and legality of the order of the termination. On the date when the dispute was being adjudicated, there was no order of termination, in much as, the said order of termination had already been set aside and merged with the appellate order. The appellate authority had already directed reinstatement of the workman. Once, an appellate order has been passed and, the order of termination having been set aside, the question deciding the said dispute again by the Labour Court does not arise. In the opinion of the Court, the reference raised before the Labour Court had been rendered infructuous. The Labour Court should have declined to answer the reference in the affirmative. 7. In the opinion of the Court, the reference raised before the Labour Court had been rendered infructuous. The Labour Court should have declined to answer the reference in the affirmative. 7. This Court further finds that the Labour Court also considered the appellate order and while finding that the workman had been reinstated, moulded the relief and granted continuity of service with arrears of wages. The relief granted by the Labour Court in fact renders the appellate order nugatory. This could not have been done by the Labour Court and, in the garb of deciding the reference order could not dilate the appellate order which was not before it, unless and until, the appellate order was questioned by the workman before the Labour Court. The Labour Court could not have enlarged the scope of the reference order as is clear from the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of The Delhi Cloth and General Mills (Supra). 8. In the light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned award passed by the Labour Court cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own cost.