JUDGMENT : Mr. P.N. Ravindran, J. The petitioners herein challenge Ext P1 award passed by the Labour Court, Kollam on 10.8.2004 in I.D. No. 99 of 1995, the brief facts of the case are as follows: Messrs Oil Palm India Limited, the first petitioner is a joint venture of the Government of Kerala and the Government of India, established in the year 1983. The second petitioner is the Regional Manager of the first petitioner at Kollam. Sri. E.P. Thankappan, the second respondent in WP.(C) No. 22486 of 2007, was a labourer in Yerur Estate in Kollam district, owned by the first petitioner herein. The first respondent herein raised an industrial dispute alleging that Sri. E.P. Thankappan, was denied employment as Field Watcher with effect from 9.11.1992. Since the conciliation talks failed, the Government of Kerala referred the dispute for adjudication as per G.O. (Rt) No. 1334/95/LBR dated 13.6.1995. The issue referred for adjudication was whether there was denial of employment to Sri. E.P. Thankappan, Field Watcher, with effect from 9.11.1992. 2. Pursuant to the reference, the Labour Court issued notice to both parties. The first respondent union filed Ext. P2 claim statement contending that the workman joined service as labourer on 4.7.1971, that after the management appointed five senior most labourers as Watchman as per resolution of the Board of Directors, he had worked; as Watchman from 17.12.1988 to 8.11.1992, that thereafter he was posted in the gate and field, that he was the senior-most among the five Watchmen, that on 9.11.1992 while he was working as Field Watcher, the Regional Manager, with ulterior motives called him to his office and directed him to work as labourer thereafter. On these averments it was contended that the workman was denied employment as Field Watcher with effect from 9.11.1992. It was alleged that subsequently, at the intervention of the office bearers of the union, the Regional Manager agreed to reinstate the workman in service on condition that he should submit a medical certificate for namesake covering the period he was denied employment, that the workman submitted a medical certificate, as directed, to the Regional Manger, that after receiving the medical certificate the Regional Manager backed out of his assurance and refused to reinstate him in service. In paragraph 5 of Ext. P2 it was contended that the management is liable to reinstate the workman in service as Field Watcher with all benefits. In paragraph 5 of Ext. P2 it was contended that the management is liable to reinstate the workman in service as Field Watcher with all benefits. A reading of Ext. P2 claim statement makes it clear that the case set out by the first respondent union on behalf of the workman was that he was denied employment as Field Watcher and he is entitled to be reinstated in service as Field Watcher with back-wages. 3. The petitioners herein filed Ext. P3 written statement denying and disputing the workmen's contentions. In paragraph 4-it was stated hat the workman is a general workman employed in the Yerur Estate, that he is being paid wages applicable to ordinary workers and was never employed as Field Watcher and therefore, the question of denial of employment to him as Field Watcher does not arise at all. In paragraph 5 it was inter alia stated that the workman joined service on 4.7.1972 in the workmen category and that, to meet the exigencies, the workmen are also assigned with various field work incidental to the plantation operations like harvesting, prooning, manuring, weeding etc. and also to scare away animals on a temporary basis. It was stated that the management have a separate category of employees designated as Watchers in the staff category to look after the activities pertaining to watching work, that the workman concerned was engaged temporarily for watching the gate along with other workers for a short period on a temporary basis in December 1988, that since watching work was not required subsequently he was sent back to the field for general work and accordingly he returned for work in the field. It was contended that, that engagement was purely temporarily/casual and will not confer on him any right to claim the post of Field Watcher to which post he was never appointed. It was contended that all Field Watchers are issued letters of appointment, appointing them as Field Watcher and no such letter was ever been issued to the worker. In paragraph 7 of Ext. It was contended that all Field Watchers are issued letters of appointment, appointing them as Field Watcher and no such letter was ever been issued to the worker. In paragraph 7 of Ext. P3 it was stated that the workman had submitted application dated 11.11.1992 requesting for leave on medical grounds and entered on leave, that as he was absent from duty for more than nine months a notice dated 7.8.1993 was issued asking him to appear before the Medical Officer of the company to consider his leave application, and that he did not care to appear before the Medical Officer, but submitted an application supported by a medical fitness certificate issued by the Doctor attached to a private hospital. In paragraph 8 it was stated since the workman was continuously absent from work, a show cause notice dated 20.1.1995 was issued calling upon him to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for unauthorised absence from duty under clauses 54(25) and 54(55) of the Standing Orders, but the workman submitted a reply stating that he was denied employment for which he has raised an industrial dispute before the District Labour Officer and also requested to reinstate him as Watcher. The written statement proceeds to state that since the explanation submitted by the workman was not satisfactory, a domestic enquiry was conducted with notice to the workman, that notwithstanding the grant of sufficient opportunity, the workman was absent from the enquiry and the enquiry was conducted ex-parte. It was stated that in the enquiry the charges were proved, as it was noticed that the workman was suffering from illness and was undergoing treatment, no punishment was imposed on him, he was directed by notice dated 10.7.1995 to join duty by producing that a medical fitness certificate from the Doctor of the Medical College hospital where he had undergone treatment or from the Medical Officer of the company, but he did not report for duty. It was also stated that if the workman is prepared to produce a fitness certificate either from the Doctor who treated him in the Medical College or from the Medical Officer of the company, the management is prepared to engage him as a Worker. 4. The Regional Manger of the first petitioner company was examined as MW1 and Exts. M1 to M17 were marked. 4. The Regional Manger of the first petitioner company was examined as MW1 and Exts. M1 to M17 were marked. On the side of the workman he was examined as WW1 and the Secretary of the trade union was examined as WW2 and Exts. W1 to W4 were produced on WP(C) Nos. 7487 of 2005 & 22486 of 2007 his side. The Labour Court framed the following points for consideration: 1. Whether the worker E.P. Thankappan is a Watchman or was only a general worker? 2. Whether the denial of employment to the worker alleged is true? 3. What relief the worker is entitled to? 5. After an analysis of the evidence oral and documentary available in the case, the Labour Court held on point No. 1 that the workman was only a general worker. It was held that the evidence establishes the fact that he was only a general worker and not a Field Watcher. The Labour Court thereafter proceeded to consider whether there was denial of employment as alleged and to what relief the worker is entitled to. Even after noticing that the reference was made on the assumption that the workman was denied employment on 9.11.1992 in the post of Watcher, the Labour Court held that as the management themselves had offered to reinstate him on production of a Medical Certificate and as his service has not so far been terminated, he is entitled to be reinstated in the original post of general worker. The Labour Court also held that the insistence on production of a medical certificate was only a formality knowing full well that the genuineness of the certificate will not be meticulously gone into. The Labour Court accordingly held that the workman is entitled to be reinstated in service with effect from 9.11.1992. Taking note of the fact that he had attained the age of superannuation on 28.2.2001, the Labour Court directed payment of 50% of the back-wages and other monetary benefits for the period commencing from 9.11.1992 and ending with 28.2.2001. Ext. P1 award to the extent it holds that the workman is entitled to monetary benefits for the period from 9.11.1992 to 28.2.2001 is under challenge in this writ petition. 6. Pursuant to Ext. Ext. P1 award to the extent it holds that the workman is entitled to monetary benefits for the period from 9.11.1992 to 28.2.2001 is under challenge in this writ petition. 6. Pursuant to Ext. P1 award produced in WP(C) No. 22486 of 2007 the workman concerned, the first respondent herein, filed Claim Petition No. 2 of 2006 u/s 33 C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act claiming the sum of Rs. 1,25,351.35 by way of monetary benefits pursuant to Ext. P1 award. Since the operation of Ext. P1 award was not stayed by this Court in WP(C) No. 7487 of 2005, the Labour Court proceeded to dispose of the application and taking note of the statement filed by the management which had as a matter of fact contested the claim petition, allowed the application filed by the workman by Ext. P5 order dated 22.1.2007 and held that the workman is entitled to receive the sum of Rs. 1,11,433 towards monetary benefits for the period from 1.10.1992 to 28.11.2001. The management was directed to pay the said amount within two months failing which, it was held that the workman will be entitled to recover it together with interest with 7% per annum from the date of the award till the date of recovery. In this writ petition the management challenges Ext. P5 order passed by the Labour Court in C.P. No. 2 of 2006, on various grounds. 7. I heard Sri. Benny P. Thomas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. Subhash Chandra Boss, learned counsel appearing for first respondent. I have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. Sri. Benny P. Thomas learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that after having held that the workman was never appointed as Field Watcher and having accepted the petitioner's stand that the workman was only a general workman, the Labour Court erred in travelling outside the reference and holding that the management had denied employment to the workman as a general worker. The learned counsel contended that apart from the fact that the said issue was never referred for adjudication, as noticed by the Labour Court itself, the Labour Court erred in not adverting to the contentions raised by the petitioners in Ext. P3 written statement. The learned counsel contended that apart from the fact that the said issue was never referred for adjudication, as noticed by the Labour Court itself, the Labour Court erred in not adverting to the contentions raised by the petitioners in Ext. P3 written statement. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that on the evidence available before the Labour Court, the finding that the workman was denied employment as a general worker cannot be sustained. Per contra, Sri. Subhash Chandra Bose, learned counsel appearing for the workman contended that even assuming that the workman failed to prove that he was denied employment, the Labour Court was justified in passing the impugned award and giving effect to that award by passing Ext. P5 order which is impugned in WP(C) No. 22486 of 2007. 8. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on either side. The Labour Court had in the impugned award held in categorical terms while answering point No. 1 that the workman was never appointed as a Filed Watcher. The case put forwarded by the union in Ext. P2 claim statement was that he was denied employment as a Field Watcher with effect from 9.11.1992. The case set out by the union in Ext. P2 claim statement was that the workman is entitled to be reinstated in service as Field Watcher. It was also contended that contrary to the assurance held out, even after production of a medical certificate, he was not reinstated in service as a Field Watcher. The case set out in the written statement filed by the management was that the workman had applied for leave from 11.11.1992 on medical grounds and that even before the leave was sanctioned he entered on leave, that as he was absent for more than nine months, a notice dated 7.8.1993, (Ext. M12, produced before the Labour Court) was issued calling upon him to appear before the Medical Officer of the company to consider his leave application. It was contended that except in cases where the employee concerned takes treatment as per the advise of the Medical Officer of the company, in a private hospital or in a Government Hospital, appearance before the Medical Officer of the company is required. It was contended that except in cases where the employee concerned takes treatment as per the advise of the Medical Officer of the company, in a private hospital or in a Government Hospital, appearance before the Medical Officer of the company is required. It was contended that the workman did not care to appear before the Medical Officer, but submitted a medical fitness certificate issued by the Doctor of a private hospital.The management had stated in the written -statement that as the workman was continuously absent, a show cause notice dated 20.1.1992 was issued for unauthorised absence, that the workman submitted a reply stating that he has been denied employment for which he has raised a dispute and that as the explanation submitted by the workman was found to be not satisfactory, a domestic enquiry was conducted. It is stated that though in the domestic enquiry the workman was found guilty as he was suffering from illness and undergoing treatment, taking a lenient view, he was directed by notice dated 9.7.1995 (Ext. M15 raised before the Labour Court) to join duty by producing a medial fitness certificate either from the Doctor of the Medical College hospital where he had undergone treatment or from the Medical Officer of the company, but he did not report for duty claiming that he should be given the post of Field Watcher. A reading of Ext. P1 award discloses that even after finding that the workman was never appointed as a Field Watcher and was also not denied employment as a Field Watcher and even after noticing that the reference was made on the assumption that the workman was denied employment in the post of Field Watcher, the Labour Court proceeded to direct that he is entitled to 50% back-wages on the ground that he was entitled to be reinstated in service upon producing a medical fitness certificate. In my opinion, in coming into the said conclusion, the Labour Court travelled outside the terms of the reference and decided an issue which had not been referred for adjudication. The workman had no case that he was denied employment as a general worker. His case was that he was denied employment as a Field Watcher. It was held he was only a general worker. Therefore, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to proceed further to enquire whether he was denied employment in any other category. The workman had no case that he was denied employment as a general worker. His case was that he was denied employment as a Field Watcher. It was held he was only a general worker. Therefore, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to proceed further to enquire whether he was denied employment in any other category. Even assuming that such an enquiry could have been held, on the pleadings and materials available especially Exts. M12 and M15 letters, the finding of the Labour Court that he was denied employment as a general worker cannot be sustained. It was only after Ext. M15 letter dated 10.7.1995 had been sent calling upon the worker to join duty by producing a medical fitness certificate issued either by the Doctor of the Medical College hospital where he had undergone treatment or from the Medical Officer of the company, that the union had filed Ext. P2 claim petition dated 29.10.1996. In that claim-petition the union had no case that the workman was denied employment as a general worker. In paragraph 9 of Ext. P3 written statement the management had referred to that aspect and had stated in categorical terms though the notice dated 9.7.1995 (Ext. M15) was issued calling upon the workman to join duty he has not reported for duty. The management had also stated in paragraph 9 of Ext. P3 written statement filed in February 1996 that if the workman is prepared to produce a fitness certificate either from the Doctor who treated him in the Medical College hospital or from the Medical Officer of the company, the management is prepared to engage him as a worker, the category in which he belonged. The Labour Court has not in the impugned award entered a finding that the said offer was not bonafide or that it was only a ruse to deny employment to the worker. Besides that, the workman had not produced any document before the Labour Court to prove that in response to Ext. M15 notice he has produced a medical certificate either from the Medical Officer of the company or from the Doctor who had treated him in the Medical College hospital and that notwithstanding the production of a Medical Certificate, he was denied employment. Therefore on the merits also, I am of the opinion that the finding in Ext. M15 notice he has produced a medical certificate either from the Medical Officer of the company or from the Doctor who had treated him in the Medical College hospital and that notwithstanding the production of a Medical Certificate, he was denied employment. Therefore on the merits also, I am of the opinion that the finding in Ext. P1 award that the workman was entitled to be reinstated, cannot be sustained.' In the teeth of the offer made by employer, the Labour Court erred in holding that the production of a medical certificate was only an empty formality. I am therefore of the considered opinion that Ext. P1 award insofar as it holds that the workman is entitled to reinstated in service with 50% of the back-wages cannot be sustained. I accordingly allow the writ petition and set aside Ext. P1 award. In view of the judgment in WP(C) No. 7484 if 2005, I allow WP(C) No. 22486 of 2007, quash Ext. P5 order passed by the Labour Court, Kollam and dismiss Claim Petition No. 2 of 2006 in ID No. 99 of 1995. The parties shall bear the respective costs.