JUDGMENT : The present writ petition has been filed for setting aside the award dated 27th October 2011, passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No. 2) Dhanbad, in reference case no. 10 of 1993, whereby the reference was answered in favour of the respondent-management by rejecting the claim of the petitioner-workman. 2. The brief facts of the case as stated in the writ petition is that though the petitioner was initially appointed as miner/loader on 19.04.1982, yet as per authorization of the management, he started working as electrical helper in category II. According to the petitioner, he started working as clerk since 1986 and thereafter he was transferred from Kankani colliery to Nichitpur colliery where he worked as coal dispatch clerk for two and half years and the management regularized the petitioner on the post of Clerk Grade-III, though the petitioner was entitled to be regularized on the post of Clerk Grade-II in the year 1986 itself as per the policy decision of the management of M/s. B.C.C.L. The petitioner represented before the management and pursued the matter through Union for his regularization on the post of Clerk Grade-II w.e.f. 1986, Clerk Grade-I w.e.f. 1992 and as special grade clerk with immediate effect. However, since no action was taken by the respondent-management, the industrial dispute was raised and finally the same was referred by the appropriate government to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute. The terms of reference was 'whether the action of the management of Loyabad Colliery of B.C.C.L. in not regularising Shri Ranjit Kumar as clerk is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled? 3. The said reference was registered as reference no. 10 of 1993 before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, (No. 2), Dhanbad. After adjudication of the dispute, the learned Tribunal answered the reference in favour of the management holding interalia that since the petitioner-workman has already been regularized as clerk grade-III w.e.f. 14.08.1992, his claim for regularization on the post of Clerk Grade-II w.e.f. 1986, in Clerk Grade-I from 1992 and in special grade clerk with immediate effect being contrary to the provisions of the cadre scheme, as per J.B.C.C.I. memorandum of agreement dated 11th November 1983, is not acceptable in the eye of law. 4. During pendency of the present writ petition, the petitioner superannuated from service on 31.01.2016. 4. During pendency of the present writ petition, the petitioner superannuated from service on 31.01.2016. The said fact has been brought on record by way of filing supplementary-affidavit by the petitioner. 5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he should have been regularized on the post of Clerk Grade-II w.e.f. 1986 itself and subsequently he should have been regularized as Clerk Grade-I from 1992 and in special grade clerk with immediate effect. The learned Tribunal committed serious error in not appreciating the said fact and answering the reference against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the present dispute was referred by the Central Government for adjudication vide reference dated 22.03.1993, however, in the meantime, the petitioner was already regularized as clerk grade-III we.f. 14.08.1992 itself. Though the terms of reference was not specific, yet considering the fact that the petitioner was already regularized as Clerk Grade-III w.e.f. 14.08.1992, learned Tribunal should not have restricted itself to the terms of reference, rather, he should have gone into the actual claim of the petitioner for his regularization as Clerk Grade-II w.e.f. 1986 and in Clerk Grade I w.e.f. 1992. Learned counsel for the petitioner puts reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oil and Natural Gas Commission, versus Petroleum Coal Labour Union and Others reported in (2015) 6 SCC 494 and submits that even in absence of any specific pleading, the Labour Court/High Court have got the power to record a finding of fact so as to achieve the cause of social justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner has put much emphasis on the issue that the learned Tribunal has erroneously answered the reference against the petitioner-workman with an observation that the claim of the petitioner is contrary to the provisions of the cadre scheme as per J.B.C.C.I. memorandum of agreement. In fact, the terms of J.B.C.C.I. memorandum supports the claim put forth by the petitioner-workman. Learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to the J.B.C.C.I. memorandum of agreement dated 11th November 1983 (annexed with the rejoinder affidavit of the petitioner) submits that as per clause-2 of the J.B.C.C.I. memorandum of agreement dated 11th November 1983, the petitioner should have been placed as Clerk Grade-II within a period of four months of signing of the said agreement. 6. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-management submits that the regularization of any workman against the cadre post is always subject to the vacancy and recommendation of the D.P.C. Any instruction issued by any officer of the management cannot supersede the provisions of the cadre scheme. Since the petitioner-workman was regularized as Clerk Grade-III w.e.f. 14.08.1992, his claim for regularization as Clerk Grade-II w.e.f. 1986 is contrary to the cadre scheme of the Clerical Grade. It is further submitted that the Tribunal is bound by the terms of reference and it cannot travel beyond the same. The learned Tribunal has rightly reached a finding that since the workman was regularized in Clerk Grade-III w.e.f. 14.08.1992, his claim for regularization as Clerk Grade-II w.e.f. 1986 and as Clerk Grade-I w.e.f. 1992 is not tenable. It is further submitted that if the terms of reference was not specific, the petitioner had an opportunity to get a corrigendum issued by the appropriate government. However, since the same has not been done by the petitioner, learned Tribunal had no occasion to travel beyond the terms of reference. It is also submitted that the petitioner has annexed several documents in the writ petition, which were not exhibited before the learned Tribunal, therefore the petitioner is not permitted to improve his case by adding several documents in the present writ petition. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the relevant documents placed on record, it appears that the Government of India through Ministry of Labour referred the present dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No. 2) Dhanbad with following terms of reference. “Whether the action of the management of Loyabad Colliery of B.C.C.L. in not regularising Shri Ranjit Kr. as Clerk is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled”? 8. Learned Tribunal after considering the evidence adduced by the parties reached a conclusion that since the workman was regularised as Clerk Grade-III w.e.f. 14.08.1992 (Ext.M-1), his claim for regularization as Clerk Grade-II w.e.f. 1986, as Clerk Grade-I w.e.f. 1992 and in special grade clerk with immediate effect is not legally tenable. 8. Learned Tribunal after considering the evidence adduced by the parties reached a conclusion that since the workman was regularised as Clerk Grade-III w.e.f. 14.08.1992 (Ext.M-1), his claim for regularization as Clerk Grade-II w.e.f. 1986, as Clerk Grade-I w.e.f. 1992 and in special grade clerk with immediate effect is not legally tenable. Though the said J.B.C.C.I. memorandum of agreement dated 11th November 1983 was not exhibited during the adjudication before the learned Tribunal, yet to appreciate the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I think it appropriate to consider the provisions of the same. Clause-2 of the J.B.C.C.I. memorandum of agreement dated 11th November 1983 reads as under:- “The cases of persons in Clerical Grade III will be reviewed by the management and such of the persons whose existing job content is comparable with that of Clerks in Gr. II will be placed in Gr. II within four months of signing the Agreement”. 9. On perusal of Clause-2 of the J.B.C.C.I. memorandum of agreement dated 11th November 1983, it appears that the management was required to review the cases of the employees in Clerk Grade-III whose nature of existing job was comparable with that of Clerk Grade-II, the said employees were to be placed in Grade-II within four months of signing of the said agreement. However, in the facts of the present case, on the date of signing of the agreement, i.e. 11th November 1983, the petitioner was not working as Clerk Grade-III, rather he was regularized as Clerk Grade-III w.e.f. 14.08.1992, therefore in terms of Clause-2 of the said agreement, there was no occasion that the petitioner could have been placed as Clerk Grade-II. Under the said facts, in my considered view, the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in holding that since the petitioner was regularized as Clerk Grade-III w.e.f. 14.08.1992, his claim for regularization as Clerk Grade-II w.e.f. 1986 is contrary to the provisions of the cadre scheme as per J.B.C.C.I. memorandum of agreement dated 11th November 1983. 10. Under the said facts, in my considered view, the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in holding that since the petitioner was regularized as Clerk Grade-III w.e.f. 14.08.1992, his claim for regularization as Clerk Grade-II w.e.f. 1986 is contrary to the provisions of the cadre scheme as per J.B.C.C.I. memorandum of agreement dated 11th November 1983. 10. Further, on perusal of the impugned Award passed by the learned Tribunal, it appears that the Tribunal has not confined itself strictly to the terms of reference, rather, it also considered the specific claim of the petitioner, as evident from the aforesaid discussions and as such the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oil and Natural Gas Commission, versus Petroleum Coal Labour Union and Others (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is of no relevance in this case. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I find no infirmity in the impugned award dated 27th October 2011, passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No. 2) Dhanbad in reference case no. 10 of 1993. The writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.