By Court - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The appellant is aggrieved against the order dated 30th September, 2003 by which the award dated 28th November, 1994 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi in Reference Case No. 11/1987, has been set aside and matter has been remanded after observing that the Tribunal has decided the question which was not referred to the Tribunal. 3. The appellant's contention is that the respondents claimed themselves to be the employees of the MICA Trading Corporation of India, which has subsequently merged in the M.M.T.C. According to learned counsel for the appellant, in either case, before merger or after merger, this was the Union of India Corporation and, therefore, reference could have been made only by the Central Government which is the appropriate Government under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 whereas the reference has been made by the State government and this point has been raised before the Tribunal also and it was taken note of by the learned Single Judge, therefore, the reference itself was incompetent. 4. Learned counsel for the workmen vehemently submitted that firstly, the reference order passed by the State Government dated 15th September, 1987 was not challenged by the appellant at any point of time and not only this, but before the Tribunal they specifically waived this point and conceded that the Tribunal has jurisdiction, therefore, the appellant now cannot raise this point. It is also submitted that the learned Single Judge is absolutely right in setting aside the award as the leaned Tribunal committed serious error of law by not answering the reference but decided an entirely different issue which was not the subject matter of reference. 5. The award has been set aside by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the Tribunal has committed grave error in not answering the reference and by giving a finding regarding the capacity of Management to meet the demand of the workmen. 6. We are in agreement with the said finding of the learned Single Judge and, therefore, the matter is required to be decided afresh by the Tribunal only. 7. 6. We are in agreement with the said finding of the learned Single Judge and, therefore, the matter is required to be decided afresh by the Tribunal only. 7. So far as argument of the learned counsel for the appellant with respect to the validity of the reference is concerned, certainly this is a question of law and further, this issue has not been decided by the Tribunal on the ground that the issue has not been pressed by the appellant-Management but, at the same time, by consent the jurisdiction cannot be conferred upon the court and if the reference is required to be made by appropriate Government as provided under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, it is required to be made by that Government only and, therefore, when the matter has been reopened before the Tribunal, the appellant is given liberty to raise the objection with respect to the competence of the Government in making reference which may be decided by the Tribunal after giving full opportunity to the workmen who may also be free to show that the reference is competent and made by the appropriate Government who could have made this reference. 8. With above liberty to the appellant, this appeal is partly allowed. The judgement of the learned Single Judge is upheld with additional permission to the parties to raise the issue with respect to the competence. Since the matter is very old, the Tribunal is directed to decide the reference case within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order which shall be provided by both the parties. The office is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial court. The parties shall remain present before the Tribunal on 09.01.2012. Appeal partly allowed.