JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. - Filing this writ petition, 53 workers working as Mazdoor Signalmen under Traffic Department of Paradeep Port Trust assailed the award dated 31.12.2013 vide Annexure-1 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in the Industrial Dispute Case No.46 of 2007 thereby answering the reference in negative against 1st party-Management and opposite party no.1 after holding that the Management cannot be found to be justified in providing job on rotation basis to 74 workmen only out of 368 empanelled workmen. 2. On the basis of a dispute raised by the petitioners-workmen, 2nd party Union raised under clause (d) of sub-section (I) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947, the appropriate Government i.e. Government of India in the Ministry of Labour referred the following issues for consideration by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar. "Whether the action of the management of Paradip Port Trust, Paradip providing job of signalmen on rotation basis to 74 workmen only out of 368 empanelled signalmen (list enclosed) is legal/or justified? If not, what relief the workmen are entitled to?" 3. Reference, indicated herein, being entertained, 2nd party Union espousing the cause of its workmen filed a statement of claim indicating therein that the workmen involved are in Mazdoor category whose pay scale/wages are identical to that of signalman. All these workmen are listed under a scheme known as Paradeep Port Trust Cargo Handling workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme, 1979 along with the variety other categories of cargo handling workers. While the matter stood thus, 96 posts of Signalmen including five for S.C. & S.T. were earmarked in the High Power Committee report looking to the man power requirement of the Port at that particular point of time. The manpower requirement also taken into consideration the post fell vacant due to promotion, retirement or death. To publish the select list, trade test was conducted between 15.3.2004 to 13.5.2004 in which all together 368 Mazdoors cleared the trade test for their being empanelled as Signalmen. Consequently, a list was published showing the names of such candidates cleared the trade test vide notification dated 7.7.2004. To publish the select list, trade test was conducted between 15.3.2004 to 13.5.2004 in which all together 368 Mazdoors cleared the trade test for their being empanelled as Signalmen. Consequently, a list was published showing the names of such candidates cleared the trade test vide notification dated 7.7.2004. It is alleged that even though work available was required to be assigned/distributed amongst all the 368 qualified Mazdoors, the Management of Paradeep Port Trust adopted a dubious measure and through its Traffic Department prepared a list of only 74 Mazdoors for their exclusive engagement, which list was published on 6.1.2005. It is further alleged by the Union representing the Workmen that the list so prepared for engagement as Signalmen was also ignoring the seniority of the personnel/workmen of the main list prepared under 1979 scheme even ignoring the serial number/seniority of workmen, those who had cleared the trade test as per the list published on 7.7.2004. The protest by the 215 Mazdoors through representation made to the Traffic Manager against such unfair action of the Management remain unheeded even the assurance of the Management to work out the modality by which all trade test qualified Mazdoors can be offered by their being booked as Signalmen on rotation in at least three groups also remained in air. It is argued that the Traffic Manager, the Board and the Port Authority moved in clandestine manner confining the allotment of entire work only in favour of 74 and thereby ignoring the cases of such selected persons. In filing the statement of claim, the Union representing the disputant/workmen demanded for creation of additional post of Signalmen, filling of the vacant post, adjudication of all matters incidental to the present dispute. Further, restraining the management from adopting the unfair labour practise, also empanelling the Mazdoors for their being booked as Signalmen declaring the impugned select list confining to 74 Mazdoors as illegal and inoperative and further for grant of equal opportunity to all the 368 empanelled Mazdoors to work as Signalmen on rotation basis. 4. First Party - Management on their appearance filed written statement indicating that the cargo handling workers are governed under a scheme called Paradeep Port Cargo Handling Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme, 1979. 4. First Party - Management on their appearance filed written statement indicating that the cargo handling workers are governed under a scheme called Paradeep Port Cargo Handling Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme, 1979. It is also contended by it that there is no elaborate provision under the scheme of 1979 to follow the recruitment rules for filling up the vacancies and promotion to the cargo handling workers. The Port Trust, as a matter of practise empanelled Signalmen from amongst the Mazdoors in the past. Further, since the Cargo Handling Scheme has provided such empanelment after a trade test, the Port Trust decided to conduct trade test for empanelment of Signalmen. The necessity of such empanelment arose due to increase in the demand of Signalmen to meet the requirement of large number of vessels arriving at the Port with cranes which require engagement of Signalmen and it is under this circumstance, the Port Authority called for applications and in the process, prepared the list of 368 pass out Mazdoors in the trade test. List, which was published on 7.7.2004. Further, it is submitted in the written statement that the strength of Signalmen at the particular time was reduced to 62 as against the requirement of 136 Signalmen. Accordingly, 74 Mazdoors from the select list have been engaged, which includes first 61 from General category, first 10 from Scheduled Caste category and first 3 from Scheduled Tribe category and denied to have adopted any clandestine manner in the matter of engagement of Signalmen. Pending adjudication of the industrial dispute, the Port Authority taking approval of the Board engaged 74 Signalmen. Further, since there is no further vacancy, Management contended that there was no scope for engagement of any Signalman beyond the list of 74. 5. In filing rejoinder, the 2nd Party - Union further contended that the method adopted by the Port Authority is dubious and arbitrary depriving the selected candidates from equal treatment in the matter of engagement and ultimately claimed that either the required select list of 74 Mazdoors was to be prepared on the basis of their inter-se seniority or all such select candidates should be engaged as Signalmen on rotation basis. On the basis of pleadings of the rival partiers, the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum - Labour Court, Bhubaneswar framed following issues: 1. Whether the reference is maintainable? 2. On the basis of pleadings of the rival partiers, the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum - Labour Court, Bhubaneswar framed following issues: 1. Whether the reference is maintainable? 2. Whether the management is justified in providing job on rotation basis limiting it to 74 workers instead the total empanelled workers numbering 368? 3. If not, what relief the workmen are entitled to? 6. The 2nd Party - Union examined two witnesses and relied on 8 documents whereas the 1st Party Management examined one witness and relied on 4 documents. Considering the pleadings, the materials available from evidence as well as the documents so relied on the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum - Labour Court, Bhubaneswar decided Issue No.2, the vital issue in favour of the 2nd Party - Union by observing that "in the aforesaid premises, it cannot be held that the Management is justified in providing job on rotation basis limiting it to 74 workers instead of total 368 empanelled workers and in answering Issue No.3 directed for provide booking of Signalmen inviting all the 368 selected workers on the basis of marks obtained in the trade test and that too on rotation basis. 7. By filing the present writ petition, 74 Mazdoors held to be arbitrarily engaged by the Port Authority by the impugned award, as petitioners assailed the above finding of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum - Labour Court, Bhubaneswar on the premises that the impugned award is illegal, arbitrary, perverse, against the weights of materials on record, contrary to well settled position of service jurisprudence, unsettled the settled affairs after a decade and the award has been passed in gross violation of principle of natural justice in as much as neither the petitioners nor their union was ever arrayed as a party to the proceeding and the impugned order has been passed behind their back. In brief, while supporting the stand of the Management, the petitioners justified the system adopted by the Traffic Department of the Port Authority and contended that there is no illegality or irregularity in the ultimate decision of the port authority in confining the engagement only to 74 selected workmen. In assailing the impugned order, the present petitioners further alleged that by the direction in the impugned award, there is likelihood of the petitioners being disengaged from service. In assailing the impugned order, the present petitioners further alleged that by the direction in the impugned award, there is likelihood of the petitioners being disengaged from service. In concluding his argument, Sri Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently urged that the impugned award resulted in disengagement of the present petitioners and it ought to be interfered and set aside. 8. Sri S.K. Padhi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Paradeep Port Trust on the other hand contended that there is no dispute that depending on a trade test conducted by the Port Authority, a list of 368 Mazdoors has been prepared, but considering the manpower requirement and looking to the Constitutional mandate to give weightage to the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe candidates, the traffic Management of the Port Authority has prepared a note favouring the engagement in favour of 74 Mazdoors and consequently the Port Authority has taken 74 Mazdoors from the select list, which includes first 61 from General category, first 10 from Scheduled Caste category and first 3 from Scheduled Tribe category. Sri Padhi, learned Senior counsel also vehemently urged that considering from the point of view of availability of work, it is not possible to engage such huge number of persons even though they all find place in the select list. 9. From the pleadings of the respective parties, it appears that though the petitioners have sole prayer for quashing of Annexure-1, the award, but the pleadings in the writ petition while assailing the award under Annexure-1 along with merits has also raised that the award under Annexure-1 as bad being passed behind the back of the 74 workmen, the present petitioners, for being passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the present petitioners. Therefore, before proceeding to decide the merit in the award, it is now necessary to first decide as to whether the petitioners raising such a question in the present writ petition undoubtedly in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, before proceeding to decide the merit in the award, it is now necessary to first decide as to whether the petitioners raising such a question in the present writ petition undoubtedly in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In this context, it is now necessary to refer to Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 particularly to Section 10(1), which is quoted as hereunder :- "(1) Where the appropriate Government is of opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, it may at any time, by order in writing,- (a) refer the dispute to a Board for promoting a settlement thereof; or (b) refer any matter appearing to be connected with or relevant to the dispute to a Court for inquiry; or (c) refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with, or relevant to, the dispute, if it relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule, to a Labour Court for adjudication; or (d) refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with, or relevant to, the dispute, whether it relates to any matter specified, in the Second Schedule or the Third Schedule, to a Tribunal for adjudication: Provided that where the dispute relates to any matter specified in the Third Schedule and is not likely to affect more than one hundred workmen, the appropriate Government may, if it so thinks fit, make the reference to a Labour Court under clause (c): Provided further that where the dispute relates to a public utility service and a notice under section 22 has been given, the appropriate Government shall, unless it considers that the notice has been frivolously or vexatiously given or that it would be inexpedient so to do, make a reference under this subsection notwithstanding that any other proceedings under this Act in respect of the dispute may have commenced: Provided also that where the dispute in relation to which the Central Government is the appropriate Government, it shall be competent for that Government to refer the dispute to a Labour Court or an Industrial Tribunal, as the case may be, constituted by the State Government;" It is significant here so far as the reference to the Tribunal is concerned, Section 10 (1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 empowered the appropriate Government to refer the dispute to the Tribunal. Reading of the whole provision under Section 10(1) (a) to (d) clearly seems to be that the Industrial Tribunal while dealing with an Industrial Dispute, came to the conclusion that person other than those mentioned as parties to the Industrial Dispute were necessary for a valid determination of the said dispute, it had the power to summon them and if such persons are summoned to appear and heard, then the award pronounced in such event binds them. Thus, there is no doubt that the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court has such power. But there naturally raises the question about the extent of this power. In dealing this question, it is to be kept in mind, one most essential fact and that is the Industrial Tribunal is a Tribunal of limited jurisdiction. It?s jurisdiction is to try an Industrial Dispute referred to it for its adjudication by the appropriate Government by an order of reference passed under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is not open to the Industrial Tribunal to travel materially beyond the term of reference. It is well settled that the term of reference determined the scope of its power and jurisdiction from case to case. In other words, Section 10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the appropriate Government can refer the Industrial Dispute, whether it relates to any matter specified in the second schedule or third schedule to a Tribunal for adjudication. In other words, under Section 10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the appropriate Government can refer to the Industrial Tribunal not only specific Industrial Dispute but can also refer along with matters appearing connected with, or relevant to, the said dispute. It is otherwise, the power of appropriate Government has been enlarged in regard to the reference of Industrial Disputes to the Tribunal and not the vice versa. It is otherwise, the power of appropriate Government has been enlarged in regard to the reference of Industrial Disputes to the Tribunal and not the vice versa. Section 10 (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act reads as follows: "(4) Where in an order referring an industrial dispute to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal] under this section or in a subsequent order, the appropriate Government has specified the points of dispute for adjudication, the Labour Court or the Tribunal or the National Tribunal, as the case may be] shall confine its adjudication to those points and matters incidental thereto." Reading of the above, it becomes clear that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal would be confined to the points of disputes specified by the order of reference and adds that the said jurisdiction may take within its sweep matters incidental to the said points. In other words, where certain points of dispute have been referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication, it may, while dealing with the said points to deal with matters incidental thereto and that means if, while dealing with such incidental matters, the Tribunal feel that some reasons also are not added to the reference should be brought before it, it may be able to make an order in that behalf under Section 18 (3) (b) as it stands now. Similarly, Section 10 (5) of the Industrial Disputes Act which reads as under: "(5) Where a dispute concerning any establishment or establishments has been, or is to be, referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal] under this section and the appropriate Government is of opinion, whether on an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, that the dispute is of such a nature that any other establishment, group or class of establishments of a similar nature is likely to be interested in, or affected by, such dispute, the appropriate Government may, at the time of making the reference or at any time thereafter but before the submission of the award, include in that reference such establishment, group or class of establishments, whether or not at the time of such inclusion any dispute exists or is apprehended in that establishment, group or class of establishments." This Provision has conferred power on the appropriate Government to add to the reference of any other establishments, group or classes of establishment of a similar nature, if it is satisfied that these persons or establishments are likely to be interested in or affected by such disputes can accordingly add. Reading of all the above provisions make it abundantly clear that in every case such addition can be made before the award is submitted and that too by the appropriate Government alone. With the above legal proposition restricting the power of Industrial Tribunal in the matter of addition of party in view of statutory mandate to confine its jurisdiction to the terms of reference and a power of the Tribunal to ask the referring authority to add any such party pending consideration of an Industrial adjudication and in view of the pronouncement of law by the Hon?ble Apex Court in the case of Hochtief Gammon v. Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, Orissa & others, A.I.R. 1964 S.C 1746 holding that all such exercises must not only be asking for such a relief in the pending of an industrial adjudication and before an award is ultimately passed. It is now necessary to see if such a contingency is available in the case at hand, particularly, keeping in view the factual background involved in the particular case. It is now necessary to see if such a contingency is available in the case at hand, particularly, keeping in view the factual background involved in the particular case. From the entire reading of the pleadings of the petitioners available in the writ petition, it is not only observed that the writ petition is totally silent on the aspect as to any attempt by the petitioners to bring them to the fold of the industrial adjudication pending adjudication of the matter, rather it is observed that petitioners even though were aware of pendency of such an industrial adjudication, remained silent spectator all through and it is only after the award is passed, they raised such issue by filing the present writ petition which in view of detail discussions herein above is not permissible in the eye of law at this stage. From the contest of the Management, this Court observes that even in absence of such an attempt the Management has made all its possible endeavours to justify the action impugned, for which these petitioners cannot also otherwise claim that their case remain unheard. 10. Considering the citation at the instance of the petitioners in the case of Hochtief Gammon v. Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, Orissa & others, as reported in A.I.R.1964 S.C. 1746 (supra), this Court observes from the facts available in the reported case that this is a case where the Industrial Tribunal considering an application at the instance of Hochtief Gammon before the Tribunal pending industrial adjudication in the matter of addition of party, the M/s Hindustan Steel Limited and it is being aggrieved by the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, which went up to the Hon?ble Apex Court, this is not a case in the present writ petition, as the present writ petition arises out of an award itself and admittedly in absence of any such attempt. Thus, above decision has no application to the case of the petitioners, rather the observations made therein estops the petitioners to raise such a point at this stage of the matter. This Court accordingly negatives the points raised by the petitioners in the above regard. 11. Now coming to deal with the other issue as to whether the decision contained in the award is bad in law. This Court accordingly negatives the points raised by the petitioners in the above regard. 11. Now coming to deal with the other issue as to whether the decision contained in the award is bad in law. The, moot question here required to be determined is as to what is the object behind bringing in the list of successful candidates through the Trade Test and if that object has been fulfilled or not and further, in view of existence of a long list of 368 Signalmen, whether Paradeep Port is justified in confining the engagement to only the 74 Signalmen, the petitioners in the writ petition? 12. There is no denial to the fact that the number of Signalmen kept in panel is much more than the manpower requirement in the side of Signalman. As per record, Management had the specific plea that the Cargo Handling Workmen are governed under a scheme, called, Paradeep Port Cargo Handling Works (Regulation of Employment) Rules-1979. At the same time, it also claimed that there is no elaborate provision under the Scheme, 1979 to follow the Recruitment Rules for filling up of the vacancies and promotion of the Cargo Handling Workmen. It is further contend that the Port Trust, as a matter of practise, empanels Signalmen from amongst the Mazdoors in the past. Since scheme facilitates preparation of panel after going through the trade test, following the practise the Port Authority put the Mazdoors to trade test and prepared a panel and panel involved here, is an outcome of the said practise. It is also the specific case of the Port Trust that the Management?s necessity for such empanelment arose due to increased demand of Signalmen to meet the requirement of large number of vessels arriving at the Port with Cranes, which requires engagement of Signalmen. From the stand of both the sides, it is seen that though the list of 368 Signalmen was prepared in 2004, but the engagement of requirement never exceeded 79 all these years with inclusion of 5 Mazdoors on the demand of the Union in the meanwhile. Though the Management claims that the list was prepared in terms of merit of all the candidates appeared in the trade test, but there is no single scrap of paper in justifying the same. Though the Management claims that the list was prepared in terms of merit of all the candidates appeared in the trade test, but there is no single scrap of paper in justifying the same. Be that as it may, though the particular annexure discloses that the list, so prepared, is in terms of securing of marks in the trade test, but Management for the reason best known to it choose to suppress the merit list and the dispute in the said regard remain unproved. Now coming to the question of selective engagement, that is confining the engagement only to 74 Workmen and subsequently increased up to 79 in between and at the pleading of both the parties leads to the point of disengagement and for non-challenge of the Workmen to the direction in the award, the matter now confines to the direction part of award i.e. engagement of the Workmen as Signalmen on rotation wise. The entire pleading of the 1st party - Management nowhere discloses choosing the 74 or 79 Signalmen for their engagement, except a plea that the decision of the Management to confine the engagement to 74 is their prerogative and looking to the demand of manpower at the work site. Such action of the management appears to be tainted with arbitrariness and discriminatory for which such action cannot be sustained. The tripartite settlement involving the Union and the Management refers to settlement in increasing the engagement of Signalman beyond 74. This being the position in the tripartite settlement, the settlement has nothing to do with the issues involved in the dispute resolved through award. The Tribunal has the clear finding that there is no justification in confining the engagement of Signalmen only to 74. This Court also observes that in absence of specific condition, statutory or otherwise, restricting engagement of Signalmen to 74, Management action in confining to 74 Signalmen is not only has no support of law but also discriminatory otherwise and keeping such a long list of Signalman un-hold without any scope for their engagement, also deprived the rest people from their livelihood. 13. Under the circumstances, the writ petition does not bear any merit for which the same is dismissed. However, there is no order as to cost. Vinod Prasad, J. - I agree. Final Result : Dismissed