ORDER : Heard Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner. No one appears on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 in spite of valid service of notice. 2. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the award dated 28.09.2000 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi in Reference Case No. 1 of 1987, whereby and where under although the reference has been answered in favour of the management but consequential relief has been granted to the workmen. The petitioner has also prayed for an appropriate writ to hold and declare the award dated 28.09.2000 in Reference Case No. 1 of 1987 as illegal and arbitrary and wholly beyond the scope and terms of reference. 3. In terms of the notification dated 14.11.1986 the Government of Bihar, Department of Labour Employment and Training, Patna had referred the following dispute for adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi. “(1) Whether the management is competent to increase the spread-over for the workmen deployed on key duty in the Stores Deptt. of Bokaro Steel Plant to 9-1/2 hours ? If not, what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to ? (2) Whether the workmen concerned are entitled to two day's compensatory holiday for every eight hours of extra work done.” 4. The workmen concerned had filed their written statement in which it has been stated the management vide office order issued in the year 1973 had evolved a practice that personnel posted for key duty will attend their duties half an hour before and leave the works after half an hour i.e. from 7.30 A.M. to 5.00 P.M., in place of normal duty hours from 8.00 A.M. to 4.30 P.M., with half an hour interval from 1.00 P.M. to 1.30 P.M. and thus they were engaged with nine hours with half an hour interval. It has been stated that the workmen were paid overtime wages for one hour extra work i.e. 9.00 hours of work in place of 8.00 hours every day equivalent to two hours wages as per rules. The workmen were also given compensation equivalent to two days for one day work in holiday or one day wages and one compensatory off and in case of no compensatory off equivalent to two days wages. 5. The workmen were also given compensation equivalent to two days for one day work in holiday or one day wages and one compensatory off and in case of no compensatory off equivalent to two days wages. 5. It is the case of the Union that till 1986 the practice was prevalent which has been indicated above and all of a sudden vide office order dated 14.02.1986 the duty hours of the employees were changed from eight hours to nine and a half hours as spread-over with a rest of one and a half hour. On protest by the workmen the office order was withdrawn. A tripartite meeting was held between the management, members of the Bokaro Steel Workers Union and the Deputy Labour Commissioner and it was agreed to refer the issue for adjudication to have an authenticity in change of the service conditions. It is the case of the workmen that they were having no knowledge about the said agreement. It has been stated that the management had changed the service conditions of the workmen since 1986 without giving notice in terms of Section 9(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act and overtime wages were also stopped and the compensatory leave was altered. 6. It is the claim of the workmen that the existing practice prior to notice dated 14.02.1986 should continue and the subsequent practice be declared void and illegal. The workmen also claimed that they are also entitled for two day's compensatory holiday for every eight hours of extra work done. 7. The management had also filed its written statement in which it has been stated that since the deployment of Central Industrial Security Forces the security of the company's properties including stores is the primary responsibility of CISF and accordingly stores personnel were detailed for key duty in each depot. It has been stated that according to the prevalent practice since more than a decade the store keeping staff deployed for key duty collects and deposits the keys of a particular depot to CISF after conducting a joint inspection of lock and seal of each godown/ sheds and certificates in duplicate are signed jointly by the security as well as stores personnel. The management further has stated that in the interest of work, office order dated 17.02.1986 was issued in which the spread-over of the workmen was extended to nine and a half hours. 8. The management further has stated that in the interest of work, office order dated 17.02.1986 was issued in which the spread-over of the workmen was extended to nine and a half hours. 8. The learned Tribunal based on the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced had framed the following issues for consideration: A. Whether the spread-over made by the management extended to 9-1/2 hours by terms of office order dated 14.02.1986 by fixing the duty hours from 7.30 P.M. to 5.00 P.M. with an interval of rest between 12.30 P.M. to 2.00 P.M. is within the competence of the management ? B. Whether the aforesaid action of the management is legal or justified ? C. Whether the workmen are entitled to two day's compensatory holiday for every eight hours of extra work done ? D. To what relief, if any, are the workmen entitled ? 9. So far as issue no. 7 (A) is concerned the learned Tribunal had come to a conclusion that spread-over extending to nine and a half hours as contained in office order dated 14.02.1986 is within the competence of the management. 10. So far as issue no. 7(C) is concerned it has been held that the workmen are not entitled to two days compensatory holiday for eight hours of extra work done. 11. The management is aggrieved with the findings recorded in issue no. 7 (B) and 7 (D). While answering issue no. 7 (B) it has been held that the management had violated the provisions of Section 9 (A) of the Industrial Disputes Act as no prior notice was issued while changing the service conditions of the workmen and therefore it has been held that the action of the management was illegal. Consequent to issue no. 7 (B) having been decided in favour of the workmen issue no. 7 (D) has also been decided against the management by holding that the workmen are entitled to consequential reliefs and also to the difference between the working hours as they stood before 14.02.1986 and the working hours after 14.02.1986. 12. The management thus is aggrieved by the finding as recorded with respect to issue nos. 7 (B) and 7 (D). 13. It has been stated by Mr. 12. The management thus is aggrieved by the finding as recorded with respect to issue nos. 7 (B) and 7 (D). 13. It has been stated by Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the reference was only with respect to the competency of the management to increase the spread over for the workmen deployed on key duty in the stores department of Bokaro Steel Plant to nine and a half hours but the learned Tribunal has expanded the scope of reference by framing further issues with respect to whether the action of the management was legal and justified and to what relief the workmen concerned are entitled. Learned senior counsel submits that the learned Tribunal apparently had acted beyond the terms of the reference and although the reference was answered in favour of the management on both the counts but still the management has been saddled with an immense liability on account of the learned Tribunal traveling beyond the terms of the reference. 14. Terms of the reference as stated above was with respect to the competency or otherwise of the management to increase the spread-over for the workmen deployed on key duty in the stores department of Bokaro Steel Plant to nine and a half hours apart from the question as to whether the workmen concerned were entitled to two day's compensatory holiday for every eight hours of extra work done. The learned Tribunal while deciding the first question of the reference has taken recourse to the various provisions of the Factories Act while coming to a conclusion that it is within the competence of the management to spread-over the working hours to nine and a half hours as has been done by the management in its office order dated 14.02.1986. The learned Tribunal thereafter has proceeded to decide as to whether the office order dated 14.02.1986 was in terms of Section 9 (A) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Section 9 (A) of the Industrial Disputes Act deals with notice of change and it clearly mandates that no employer who proposes to effect any change in the conditions of service applicable to any workmen in respect of any matters specified in the fourth schedule shall effect such change without giving the workmen likely to be effected by such change a notice in the prescribed manner of the nature of the change proposed to be effected. The fourth schedule includes as Clause 4 the hours of work and rest intervals. 15. It is the case of the management that prior to 14.02.1986 a different system had evolved and which was being followed and ratified by the Certified Standing Order but on account of the nature and exigency of work and the presence of CISF personnel who were looking after the security of the company it was necessary to spread-over the work for nine and a half hours. The learned Tribunal had therefore while correctly applying the provisions of the Factories Act had come to a conclusion that it was within the competence of the management to increase the spread-over for the workmen deployed on key duty in the stores department. It is to be noted herein that the dispute which was referred for adjudication was under a tripartite settlement dated 22.02.1986 between the management, the workmen represented by Bokaro Steel Workers Union, Bokaro Steel City as well as the Deputy Labour Commissioner. The background prior to referring the matter for adjudication would reveal about deciding the competency or otherwise of the management to increase the spread-over for the workmen deployed on key duty in the stores department of Bokaro Steel Plant to nine and a half hours apart from the other claim with respect to two days compensatory holiday for every eight hours of work done. 16. The expanding of the scope of the reference by the learned Tribunal would certainly have been permissible if the reference was not on account of the tripartite agreement. However, when the only issue with which the learned Tribunal was confronted with was with respect to the competency or otherwise of the management the learned Tribunal should have confined itself to the said question and not go beyond the terms of the reference by also granting consequential relief to the workmen which was never the issue before the learned Tribunal by deciding the action of the management in increasing the spread-over period in violation of the provisions of Section 9 (A) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The learned Tribunal was thus to adjudicate and answer the reference and decide the issue put before it for adjudication and not beyond. The learned Tribunal was thus to adjudicate and answer the reference and decide the issue put before it for adjudication and not beyond. When there has been no demand made and the essence of the adjudication was the tripartite settlement as repeatedly asserted hereinabove the learned Tribunal should have merely decided the reference on the terms as indicated in the reference and by making inroads into territories which were beyond its purview the same makes the impugned award arbitrary, illegal and perverse. The relief granted by the learned Tribunal was entirely different and beyond the scope of the reference. 17. In view of the findings recorded above, the learned Tribunal could not have passed an award for grant of consequential relief’s pursuant to their being a finding of violation of Section 9 (A) of the Industrial Disputes Act by the management and accordingly that part of the award is hereby set aside. 18. This writ application stands allowed.