JUDGMENT M.N. Bhandari, J . - A writ petition was filed by the appellant to challenge the award passed by the Labour Court holding retrenchment of the non-appellant - workman to be in violation of Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act of 1947"). 2. It is a case where an award for reinstatement with full back-wages was passed by the Labour Court. It was challenged by the appellants alleging no violation of Section 25G of the Act of 1947. The Labour Court found employment of six persons subsequent to termination in violation of Section 25G of the Act of 1947. Learned Single Judge did not interfere in the finding of facts in holding termination to be in violation of Section 25G of the Act of 1947. The interference is, however, made in grant of back- wages. An observation regarding payment of last wages drawn in terms of Section 17B of the Act of 1947 has been made, but, while concluding the order, a further direction for consideration of case of the non-appellant-workman for regularisation of his services on the post of Class IV has been given. A direction is further given for pay at the minimum of the pay scale of Class IV. The aforesaid direction has been challenged by the appellants. 3. It is stated that the award and subsequent litigation was to be decided within the framework of the reference sent by the appropriate government to the Labour Court under the Act of 1947. Neither the Labour Court nor this Court can travel beyond terms of the reference. The workman did not plead for consideration of his case for regularisation on the post of Class - IV and to pay him at minimum of the pay scale of the aforesaid post on his reinstatement. It could not have been for the reason that the workman was engaged through a Contractor and not by the mode provided under the Rules. In fact, he did not work on the aforesaid post thus interference in the order of learned Single Judge to the extent of the direction to consider the case of the workman for regularisation of his services and grant pay at minimum of the pay scale of the post may be made. 4. Learned counsel for the non-appellant-workman has contested the appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the non-appellant-workman has contested the appeal. It is submitted that learned Single Judge has passed just and proper order in the facts and circumstances of the case. The non-appellant is likely to retire in the month of November, 2018 thus it was found appropriate to direct the appellants to consider his case for regularisation on the post of Class - IV and, at the same time, to pay at minimum of the pay scale on his reinstatement. The prayer is accordingly to maintain the order passed by learned Single Judge. 5. We have considered rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. So far as the finding of Labour Court regarding violation of Section 25G of the Act of 1947 is concerned, we do not find any error therein. The evidence was led to show that after retrenchment of the workman concerned, six persons were employed by the appellants. In view of the above, violation of Section 25G of the Act of 1947 was made out. 7. The question now comes about relief. 8. The Labour Court directed for reinstatement with continuity in service and full back-wages. The appellants challenged the award even against the relief aforesaid. It is precisely on the ground that the workman was engaged on contractual basis thus could not have been reinstated with full back-wages. 9. We find that even contractual employee falls in the definition of "workman", as given under Section 2(s) of the Rajasthan amending Act. The appellants challenged the award even against the relief aforesaid. It is precisely on the ground that the workman was engaged on contractual basis thus could not have been reinstated with full back-wages. 9. We find that even contractual employee falls in the definition of "workman", as given under Section 2(s) of the Rajasthan amending Act. For ready reference, Section 2(s) of the amending Rajasthan Act is quoted hereunder : "2(s) "workman" means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry by an employer or by a contractor in relation to the execution of his contract with such employer to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical, or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person - (i) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or (ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a pension; or (iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or (iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding (ten thousand rupees) per mensem or exercise, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature." 10. The provision quoted above shows that even a contractual employee falls in the definition of the "workman". In view of the above, on finding retrenchment to be in violation of Section 25G of the Act of 1947, it may result in reinstatement with full back-wages unless workman is in gainful employment. Thus, we do not find any illegality in the direction of reinstatement with continuity in service even if the non-appellant was a contractual employee. 11. Learned Single Judge, however, denied back-wages. Thus, we do not find any illegality in the direction of reinstatement with continuity in service even if the non-appellant was a contractual employee. 11. Learned Single Judge, however, denied back-wages. A reference of benefit of last wages drawn as per Section 17B of the Act of 1947 has been given, but, while denying back-wages, the aforesaid has not been saved thus to make the order clear, we direct the appellants not to recover the amount paid under Section 17B of the Act of 1947. 12. So far as the direction for continuity in service is concerned, we do not find any illegality therein. Once retrenchment is held illegal, it can result in an award for reinstatement within continuity of service. It is moreso when new hands were engaged by the appellants after termination of services of the non-appellant-workman. 13. However, the direction of learned Single Judge for consideration of case of the workman for regularisation of his services, that too, on the post of Class - IV and to pay him at minimum of the pay scale on his reinstatement needs interference. The direction aforesaid has been given ignoring that the writ petition against the award was filed by the management and not by the workman to claim additional benefits. It is settled law that the award and subsequent adjudication need to be within the framework of the terms of the reference before the Labour Court. It is in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur VS. Om Prakash Sharma reported in (2006) 5 SCC 123 apart from the judgment of this Court in the case of Suresh Chandra Vs. General Manager Rajasthan State Bridge & Construction Corporation reported in 2002 (3) WLC (Raj.) 67 . 14. In the light of the aforesaid, the Court cannot travel beyond the terms of the reference. The workman did not make a claim or even pleaded for regularisation of his services or to pay him at minimum of the pay-scale. Without any prayer and argument, relief could not have been granted by learned Single Judge thus we cause interference to that extent. The direction aforesaid could not have been given when the award was not challenged by the workman. Without any prayer and argument, relief could not have been granted by learned Single Judge thus we cause interference to that extent. The direction aforesaid could not have been given when the award was not challenged by the workman. Such a direction could not have been given in the writ petition filed by the management because their position cannot be made bad to worse in their own writ petition. Thus, to the extent of the direction given in para No.7 of the judgment under challenge, an interference is made. The direction for consideration of the case for regularisation and pay at minimum of the pay scale on the post of Class - IV is set aside while maintaining remaining order. 15. The appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid.