JUDGMENT Ajay Mohan Goel, J. (Oral) - As similar issues of fact and law are involved in all these petitions, with the consent of the parties, they are being disposed of by way of a common judgment. 2. In all these cases, Shri Ashwani Kumar Gupta, learned Advocate has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent-workman and as no order prejudicial to the interest of proforma respondent is being passed by this Court, accordingly, no notice is being issued to the said respondent. 3. For the sake of brevity, facts are being referred from CWP No. 2612 of 2018, titled as The Dean, College of Horticulture and Forestry, Neri and another v. Shri Rajeev Kumar and another. 4. Respondent-workman was engaged as unskilled labourer by the petitioners in the year 2006, initially for 89 days. He continued to work intermittently with fictional breaks up to the year 2013. Petitioners thereafter entered into an agreement with M/s Shimla Cleanways to outsource unskilled labourers for a period of 11 months from 01.05.2013 to 31.03.2014. This was followed by renewal of contract of respondent for another one year. The services of the respondent-workman were terminated on 09.09.2014 without any notice or retrenchment compensation in lieu thereof. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the workman raised an industrial dispute. The appropriate Government forwarded the following Reference for adjudication to the learned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Kangra:- "Whether time to time termination of the services of Shri Rajeev Kumar S/O Shri Sarwan Kumar, R/O Village Sohri, P.O. Jolsappar, Tehsil Nadaun, district Hamirpur, H.P. during year 2006 to 22-04-2013 by (i) the Director, Institute of Biotechnology & Environmental Sciences, Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture & Forestry, Neri, District Hamirpur, H.P. (Principal Employer) (ii) the Registrar, Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture & Forestry, Nauni, District Solan, H.P. (Principal Employer) without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and thereafter his services were transferred to the contractor company i.e. M/S Shimla Cleanways without his knowledge w.e.f. 15- 07-2013 where he worked till 8-09-2014 and was again terminated w.e.f. 09-09-2014 by the Contractor, M/S Shimla Cleanways, Sahibu Niwas, New Shimla H.P. (Contractor Company), without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is legal and justified? If not, what amount of back wages, seniority, past service benefits and compensation the above worker is entitled to from the above employers?" 6. If not, what amount of back wages, seniority, past service benefits and compensation the above worker is entitled to from the above employers?" 6. This was followed by a corrigendum dated 3rd February, 2017, which reads as under:- "In partial modification of this Department''s Notification of even number dated 2412-2014, the name of employer no (i) may be read as "the Dean, College of Horticulture and Forestry Neri, District Hamirpur, H.P." instead of "the Director, Institute of Biotechnology & Environmental Sciences, Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture & Forestry, Neri, District Hamirpur, H.P.", which was inadvertently recorded in the said notification." 7. By way of award under challenge, learned Labour Court while answering the reference has inter alia held the respondent-workman to be entitled for regularization and has also directed the re-engagement of the workman forthwith, along-with seniority and continuity in service from the date of his initial engagement except back wages. 8. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have filed this writ petition. 9. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties at a considerable length and also gone through the record of the case. 10. It is a matter of record that the respondent-workman served the petitioners as an unskilled labourer from the year 2006 to 09.09.2014 when his services were terminated without any notice or retrenchment compensation. Record also demonstrates that initially the engagement of the workman was purportedly made for 89 days and fictional breaks were given to ensure that the respondent-workman did not complete 240 days in a calendar year. It is also evident from the record that respondent was initially engaged on 17.07.2006 and he continued to work with the petitioners till 20.07.2012, where-after he was engaged from 15.07.2013 to 30.09.2014 for different number of working days through outsourcing agency of manpower, as per the Outsource Policy introduced w.e.f. April 2013. However, there is no documentary evidence suggesting that at any stage the services of the respondent-workman were placed at the disposal of M/S Shimla Cleanways by the petitioners. 11. However, there is no documentary evidence suggesting that at any stage the services of the respondent-workman were placed at the disposal of M/S Shimla Cleanways by the petitioners. 11. It is apparent from the record that there is violation of Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as workmen, namely, Asha Devi and Tara Chand, who were engaged on 13.07.2009 were permitted to complete more than 240 days in the years 2010, 2011, 2012 and also 2013, whereas on account of intermittent breaks given to the respondent-workman, he was not permitted to complete 240 days in a calendar year. Therefore, the termination of services of the respondent-workman in the year 2014 without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F amounts to violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It has also been rightly held by learned Labour Court that but for the fictional breaks granted to the respondent-workman, he would have completed "continuous service" in a year as envisaged under Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This also proves that the petitioners gave deliberate breaks to the respondent-workman so that he could not complete 240 days in a calendar year. The factum of disengaging the respondent-workman periodically and retaining juniors also stands borne out from the record. In this view of the matter, we do not find any infirmity with the findings returned by the learned Labour Court directing re-engagement of the services of the respondent-workman forthwith alongwith seniority and continuity in service. 12. However, we may add that as far as the direction given by learned Tribunal to regularize services of the respondent-workman is concerned, the same is beyond the jurisdiction of the learned Labour Court. We say so for the reason that where a Reference is made for the purpose of adjudication to learned Labour Court, then the Court has to decide the said Reference and it cannot go beyond the scope of the Reference. Therefore, the findings returned by learned Labour Court that respondent-workman would be entitled to be regularized are set aside and the award passed by the learned Labour Court is modified to this extent. 13. Therefore, the findings returned by learned Labour Court that respondent-workman would be entitled to be regularized are set aside and the award passed by the learned Labour Court is modified to this extent. 13. In view of discussion held herein above, these writ petitions are dismissed by modifying the award passed by the learned Labour Court as indicated herein above with a direction to the petitioners to re-engage the respondent-workman forthwith alongwith seniority and continuity in service, as directed by learned Labour Court, on the same terms and conditions on which the respondent-workman was working as on the date of his termination. 14. The writ petitions stand disposed of in above terms, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any.