JUDGMENT : C.R. DASH, J 1. The workmen represented through Southco Metre Readers' Sangha have impugned the award dated 26.9.2012 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jeypore, circuit at Berhampur, in I.D. Case No. 1 of 2009 answering the Reference in negative and thereby dismissing the claim of the petitioner holding that they are not entitled to get any relief. 2. The case of the workmen, briefly stated, is that, initially the workmen who are members of the Sangha were working under GRIDCO continuously without any break as Contractual Metre Reader. As per the agreement dated 24.5.1999 between the GRIDCO and SOUTH CO, the power distribution licence was given to SOUTHCO represented by the Chief Executive Officer, whose subordinates are the present opposite parties. After transfer of power distribution licence to SOUTHCO by the GRIDCO, the workmen also continued to do the work of Metre Reader, maintenance, collection of Bills and distribution of Bill Papers under the Executive Engineers of Aska Electrical Division, Chhatrapur Division and Digapahandi Division of the SOUTPICO. It is further pleaded that the workmen had got required service qualifications and they have also been granted with Service Certificates and office orders and they are continuously working under the SOUTHCO without any break. Without any reason the workmen were not allowed to work by the authorities of the SOUTH CO. It is specifically pleaded that, though the workmen were doing the work of Metre Reader since about a decade, in spite of change of administration from the hands of OSEB to GRIDCO and from GRIDCO to SOUTH CO, yet they had not been regularized in their services, rather they have been disengaged by disallowing them to work without following the mandatory provision of Section 25-F of the I.O. Act. Against the action of the opposite parties Management, the workmen approached the Conciliation Officer-cum-D.L.O. Berhampur. The conciliation having failed, Failure Report was submitted to the Government and the Government referred the case to the Labour Court for adjudication of the following disputes:- (i) Whether the termination of 56 Metre Readers as listed in Schedule-1 of the CFR by the management of Southern Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Ltd. Berhampur and Executive Engineer, Aska Electrical Division, Aska Executive Engineer GNED Chhatrapur and Executive Engineer GSED, Digapahandi are legal and/or justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to? (ii) Whether demand of SOUTHCO Metre Reader Sangh, At/P.O. - Khameswari Patna, Aska, Ganjam for regularization of services of six Metre Readers by the Management of Southern Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Ltd. Berhampur and E.E, Aska Electrical Division, Aska, E.E., G.N.E.D. Chhatrapur and Executive Engineer, GSED, Digapahandi as per list in Schedule II of the report of the C.O.-cum-Dist. Labour Officer, Berhampur is legal and/or justified. 3. The Management/opposite parties filed separate written statement before the Labour Court. All of them pleaded that there was no employer or employee relationship between the Management and the workmen. Owing to increase in workload, the Management decided to engage some outsiders for Meter Reader job on contract basis and accordingly the workmen were engaged on contractual basis at the rate fixed by the Management. The workmen neither have been recruited against any sanctioned posts nor through due recruitment process of the Company and their engagement are ipso facto contractual on rate contract basis. Different rates were fixed for metres installed in rural and urban areas. They have specifically averred that the workmen were not been paid wages or salary at fixed rate for the contractual job they were discharging. They were being paid on the basis of numbers of meters they have read. They are not required to put their attendance for work and they had no schedule time of work. The workmen were not required to work under the control and supervision of the Management and they were attending to their work, at their own time. It is further specifically pleaded that, when the Management experienced difficulty to assessor check the bills payable to each Meter Reader basing on the meter reading taken by them, their contract of service was discontinued. Since most of the Metre Readers did not have any technical qualification in Electrical Trade, they could not also give correct position of metres installed in the consumers house and by such meter reading system, which was a lapse on the part of the workmen, the Management sustained huge loss and faced lots of consumer disputes. For which, the Management decided to take up the metre reading work by the existing employees having technical skill or by engaging persons with I.T.I. qualification in Electrical Trade on outsourcing agencies. For which, the Management decided to take up the metre reading work by the existing employees having technical skill or by engaging persons with I.T.I. qualification in Electrical Trade on outsourcing agencies. It is further specifically averred that the workmen have not worked for 240 days in any financial year. In the above premises, the Management has prayed for dismissal of the case. 4. In order to substantiate their case, the workmen examined one Sanjay Kumar Pattnaik as W.W.1. 27 numbers of documents were exhibited from the side of the workmen vide Ext. 1 to Ext.27. Out of these documents, the Acquaintance Roll of W.W.1 is marked as Ext.5 and the cheque issued in favour of W.W.1 towards salary, has been marked as Ext.6. On behalf of the Management, three witnesses were examined and four documents were exhibited, vide Exts. A to D. 5. Learned P.O. Labour Court, without discussing any evidence adduced by the parties, came to hold that there is no employer or employee relationship between the Management and the workmen, and on the basis of such finding the Reference was dismissed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, on the face of Reference made, learned P.O. Labour Court having decided the question of employer and employee relationship between the Management and workmen, has decided the case beyond reference. It is further submitted that the learned P.O. Labour Court had not at all taken into consideration the evidence adduced by the parties. Neither the oral evidence nor the documentary evidence adduced by the parties have been taken into consideration and discussed in the impugned judgment. Learned counsel for the opposite party - Management on the other hand submits that the Management having taken the plea that there exists no employer and employee relationship between the Management and the workmen, the workmen having not proved that they have worked for 240 days in a financial year and they were engaged on contractual basis, it was incumbent upon the learned P.O. Labour Court to decide the issue as an incidental issue and there is nothing on record to show that the P.O. Labour Court has decided the issue beyond reference. 7. 7. Relying on the case of Gouri Shankar Chhatterjee vs. Tax MACO Limited, 2002 L.I.C. 2467 (SC), learned counsel-for the opposite parties further submits that, vice specific questions have been referred on the point of legality and justifiability of the retrenchment of the workmen and regularization of some of the workmen, the question of framing further issues regarding the employer and employee relationship between the Management and the workmen was not required, as the Tribunal or Labour Court has no jurisdiction to enlarge the scope of reference made to it by the appropriate Government. The incidental issue raised in the case having been pleaded by the Management in their written-statement, evidence should have been adduced by the workmen in that regard. 8. From the impugned judgment it is found that no where the learned P.O. Labour Court has referred to any evidence adduced by any of the parties. Relying on certain reported decisions and the principles decided therein, learned P.O. Labour Court has come to the finding that, all the above circumstances combined together go to show that there existed no employer and employee relationship between the parties. Hence, they cannot be termed as workmen under the Management. In the last paragraph before the ordering portion, learned P.O. Labour Court has held thus:- "I have thoroughly scrutinized the oral as well as documentary evidence and other case laws adduced from both the sides, but those do not improve the case of the claimants in view of the findings already arrived at above. Therefore, both the issued (reference) are answered against the workmen (Second party)." 9. Though learned P.O. Labour Court is stated to have scrutinized the oral as well as documentary evidence, nowhere in the judgment he has referred to any oral or documentary evidence. Evidences of M.W.1 in paragraph-12 of his cross-examination, M.W.2 in paragraph-22 of his cross-examination and M.W.3 in paragraph-10 of his cross-examination have not at all been taken into consideration by the learned P.O. Labour Court. The documentary evidence proved by the workmen, especially Ext.5, the Acquaintance Roll and Ext.6, the Cheque issued by the Management in favour of W.W.1 towards his salary/wages have not been taken into consideration. The documentary evidence proved by the workmen, especially Ext.5, the Acquaintance Roll and Ext.6, the Cheque issued by the Management in favour of W.W.1 towards his salary/wages have not been taken into consideration. There is also no evidence from the side of the Management to show that the workmen were engaged by the Management of SOUTHCO to cope up with the workload and they were not continuing from the time of the erstwhile OSEB. There is also no evidence from the side of the workmen to show that they have worked for 240 days in a particular financial year. There is lack of evidence as to from which contractor the workmen were brought by outsourcing. If all these aspects would have been taken into consideration, learned P.O. Labour Court would have able to justify his finding. There being dearth of evidence by both sides, it is not possible on the part of this Court to decide the crucial question of facts involved in the dispute. 10. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Express News Papers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Workers, AIR 1963 SC 569 , in paragraph-19 of the judgment, .have held thus:- "19. since the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal in dealing with industrial disputes referred to it under Section 10 is limited by Section 10(4) to the points specifically mentioned in the reference and matters incidental thereto, the appropriate Government should frame the relevant orders of reference carefully and the questions which are intended to be tried by the Industrial Tribunal should be so worded as to leave no scope for ambiguity or controversy. An order of reference hastily drawn or drawn in a casual manner often gives rise to unnecessary disputes and thereby prolongs the life of industrial adjudication which must always be avoided." From the above observation, it is clear that the P.O. Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal have the power and jurisdiction to decide the reference and issues incidental thereto. An order of reference hastily drawn or drawn in a casual manner often gives rise to unnecessary disputes and thereby prolongs the life of industrial adjudication which must always be avoided." From the above observation, it is clear that the P.O. Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal have the power and jurisdiction to decide the reference and issues incidental thereto. Here, in this case the question of retrenchment/termination of services of the workmen being in issue and the Management having taken specific plea in their written statements to the effect that there exists no relationship of employers and employees between the Management and the workmen, the question whether there exists relationship of employers and employees between the Management and the workmen is an incidental issue, which can be decided rightly by the P.O. Labour Court within the ambit of the reference in the present case without framing any additional issue. In deciding such question I issue, the P.O. Labour Court cannot be said to have gone beyond the reference. 11. Taking into consideration all the aforesaid facts and my discussion in paragraph-9 supra, I feel inclined to remand the matter for a de novo trial by the learned P.O. Labour Court, Jeypore. The parties are free to file any additional pleadings, if they so like, within a month of their appearance before, the learned P.O., Labour Court, Jeypore. They are also free to lead further evidence, if they so feel like. The parties are directed to appear before the P.O. Labour Court, Jeypore on 18.11.2015. The matter should be disposed of by the learned P.O. Labour Court within six months from the date of filing of additional pleadings, if any, by the parties. I feel inclined to observe here that, before arriving at any finding, learned P.O. Labour Court shall take into consideration the evidence adduced and discuss the same in the judgment to justify his finding. 12. The impugned order dated 26.9.2012 is set aside, and the writ petition is allowed accordingly.