JUDGMENT : SUREPALLI NANDA, J. 1. Heard Sri G. Vidyasagar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition is filed to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction or a Writ of certiorari and to quash and set aside the award passed by the 1st respondent, Industrial Tribunal Court-II, Hyderabad, in I.D. No. 3 of 2013, dated 4/11/2019 which was published in Gazette of Government of Telangana vide G.O.Rt No. 145, dated 18/3/2020 and to allow this writ petition with costs. 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: (a) The petitioner is one of the oldest charitable hospital providing Medical services on ‘no profit and no loss basis’ and managed by a Trust by name Bhagawan Mahavir Memorial Trust. (b) The 2nd respondent union on behalf of nine employees, who are working as Assistant Technicians in the petitioner’s hospital made a claim before the conciliation officer, claiming themselves as Regular Technicians, and the said issue was referred to the Industrial Tribunal-2, Hyderabad as follows: “(A) Whether the Management is justified in treating the technicians as Assistants Technicians on the guise of producing the Registration Certificates from the Para Medical Board? (B) Whether the provisions of the A.P. Para Medical Board Act, 2006 can have retrospective effect on the employees who are working prior to what act, if so. (C) What kind of relief the employees effected are entitled for? (c) The Tribunal only had to decide whether the management is justified in treating the technicians as Assistant Technicians and what kind of relief the employees are entitled for. There is no mention about the applicability of Minimum Wages Act and G.O.Ms. No. 68, dated 8/12/2011 to the nine employees and that the Tribunal totally misdirected itself and adjudicated the issue and directed the petitioner to pay difference of wages as per the said Minimum Wages G.O. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is contrary to the reference made to the said Court. PERUSED THE RECORD: 4. The Government of Andhra Pradesh Labour Department has referred the matter to the Tribunal vide Proceedings No. B/3567/2013 dated 30/9/2013 for adjudication with the following issues: 1. Whether the Management is justified in treating the technicians as Assistants Technicians on the guise of producing the Registration Certificates from the Para Medical Board? 2. PERUSED THE RECORD: 4. The Government of Andhra Pradesh Labour Department has referred the matter to the Tribunal vide Proceedings No. B/3567/2013 dated 30/9/2013 for adjudication with the following issues: 1. Whether the Management is justified in treating the technicians as Assistants Technicians on the guise of producing the Registration Certificates from the Para Medical Board? 2. Whether the Provisions of the A.P. Para Medical Board Act, 2006 can have retrospective effect on the employees who are working prior to that Act if so; 3. What kind of relief the employees effected are entitled for? 5. The impugned order dated 4/11/2019 passed in I.D. No. 3 of 2013, at Para 16 reads as under: “The case was referred by Joint Commissioner of Labour (Twin Cities), Hyderabad, for adjudication under Sec. 10(1) (c) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and referred the matter for consideration with the following issued: (1) Whether the provisions of the A.P. Para Medical Board Act, 2006 can have retrospective effect on the employees who working prior to that Act? (2) Whether the petitioners’ are entitled for minimum wages par with Lab Technicians as per G.O.Ms. No. 68 of 2011? What kind of relief the employees effected are entitled for? (3) Whether the management is justified in treating the technicians as assistant’s technicians on the guise of producing registration certificate from the Para Medical Board? 6. The observations in the relevant paras of the order impugned dated 4/11/2019 passed in I.D. No. 3 of 2013, which clearly indicate that the observations and the findings are beyond the scope of reference are as follows: 29. In view of evidence on one hand, it is necessary to extract the minimum wages directed to pay following employees as per G.O.Ms. No. 68 Labour Employment Training and Factories (LAB-ID) 8/12/2011 came into effect from 19/3/2012. 32. As plain reading of Act, The A.P. Para Medical Board Act came into effect from the date of publication i.e. 25/9/2006 like wise G.O.Ms. No. 68 is issued for providing minimum wages to employees who are working as Lab Technicians, Operation Theatre Technicians etc., which includes a person having experience as Compounder having not less than 5 years experience. 32. As plain reading of Act, The A.P. Para Medical Board Act came into effect from the date of publication i.e. 25/9/2006 like wise G.O.Ms. No. 68 is issued for providing minimum wages to employees who are working as Lab Technicians, Operation Theatre Technicians etc., which includes a person having experience as Compounder having not less than 5 years experience. As per note of annexure to G.O. Clause (1) if any categories employed in employment left out they should not be paid less than minimum wages fixed in the category of workers, being same and similar category of work in this employment. It clearly shows that if any person attended similar work having 5 years experience also eligible to get minimum wages par with the persons who is working as lab technicians from the date of notification i.e. from 19/3/2012 or if he acquire such qualification subsequent to notification. 37. On the other hand, in G.O.Ms. No. 68 clearly mentioned that any person who is discharging similar duties is also entitled to get minimum wages par with lab technicians. As per evidence of WW1 and MW1 and MW2 all claimants are working as Operation Theatre Technicians, Lab Technicians etc.. Apart from above MW1 and MW2 are admitted that Assistant Lab Technicians is higher post than Compounder and all are completed 5 years service in their hospital. In view of evidence on one hand, whether the G.O.Ms. No. 68 is having retrospective effect is point for consideration before this Court. On plain reading of G.O. it is given effect from 19/3/2012. Not specifically mentioned that the said G.O is having retrospective effect. Therefore, if any person completed 5 years as on the date of G.O.Ms. No. 68 i.e. 19/3/2012, he will be eligible to draw minimum wages as specified in Group D of said G.O. from the date of notification and it is only a prospective. If any person joined in services prior to said G.O. and completed 5 years as compounder subsequent to the said G.O., he will get minimum wages from the date of completion of their service of 5 years. Likewise, if any person acquired qualification as Lab Technician under Andhra Pradesh Para Medical Board Act, 2006, he will also get benefit of minimum wages, from the date of acquire such qualification and if his pay is less prior to existence of G.O.Ms. Likewise, if any person acquired qualification as Lab Technician under Andhra Pradesh Para Medical Board Act, 2006, he will also get benefit of minimum wages, from the date of acquire such qualification and if his pay is less prior to existence of G.O.Ms. No. 68 or if he get more pay the same will be continued as per Annexure note of said G.O. 39. In view of my foregoing discussion, A.P. Para Medical Board Act, 2006 is only having prospective effect but not retrospective effect. The claimants are entitled for minimum wages as per G.O.Ms. No. 68 from the date of effect of such G.O. i.e. 19/3/2012 i.e. from the date of publication and it is also applies in prospective nature. 42. In the result, the petitioners are entitled for wages and allowances as per G.O.Ms. No. 68 with effect from 19/3/2012. Hence, respondent is directed to pay difference of wages and allowance par with the wages mentioned in Group D of G.O i.e. par with Lab Technicians from 19/3/2012 within two months from the date of publication of award. 7. In the judgment reported in State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur vs. Om Prakash Sharma, 2006 (2) LLJ 223 at Paras 3, 8 and 14 it is observed as under: “3. The respondent herein was a casual workman. He had worked with the appellant Bank from August 6, 1994 till November 17, 1994. His services were terminated. An industrial dispute was raised by him culminating in a reference made by the Appropriate Government to the Industrial Tribunal which reads as under: “Whether the action of the management of SBBJ, Jaipur is justified in terminating the services of Workman Om Prakash Sharma S/o Sita Ram Sharma w.e.f. November 19, 1994 and employing another junior workman Shri Vijay Kumar in his place without giving any opportunity of employment in violation of Sec. 25-H of ID Act. 1947? If not, what relief the workman is entitled? 8. The Industrial Court, it is well settled, derives its jurisdiction from the reference. See Mukand Ltd. vs. Mukand Staff and Officers’ Association, 2004 (10) SCC 460 : 2004 (2) LLJ 327 . 1947? If not, what relief the workman is entitled? 8. The Industrial Court, it is well settled, derives its jurisdiction from the reference. See Mukand Ltd. vs. Mukand Staff and Officers’ Association, 2004 (10) SCC 460 : 2004 (2) LLJ 327 . The reference made to the CGIT specifically refers to only one question, i.e. “Whether any illegality was committed by the management in giving appointment to one Vijay Kumar in place of the respondent in violation of Sec. 25-H of ID Act, 1947?” Non-maintenance of any register in terms of Rule 77 of the ID Rules was, thus, not in issue: 14. In the instant case, the Award of the Labour Court suffers from an illegality, which appears on the face of the record. The jurisdiction of the Labour Court emanated from the order of the reference. It could not have passed an order going beyond the terms of the reference. While passing the Award, if the Labour Court exceeds its jurisdiction, the Award must be held to be suffering from a jurisdictional error. It was capable of being corrected by the High Court in exercise of its power of judicial review. The High Court, therefore, clearly fell in error in refusing to exercise its jurisdiction. The Award and the judgment of the High Court, therefore, cannot be sustained. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the High Court is set aside. The award is set aside to the extent of order of reinstatement with back wages. The writ petition filed by the appellant in the High Court is, thus, allowed. 8. In the judgment reported in Senior Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Secunderabad and Another vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad and Another, 2002 (2) ALD (DB) 462 at Para 8 it is observed as under: “8. The functions of an Industrial Tribunal are quasi-judicial but it is not a civil Court. It has not the inherent power to decide any of the disputes raised by the parties in their pleadings. Its jurisdiction is limited and restricted only to the issues referred to it by the appropriate Government by an order of reference. In other words, the Tribunal has to function within the limits imposed upon it by the Act and has to act according to its provisions. Its jurisdiction is limited and restricted only to the issues referred to it by the appropriate Government by an order of reference. In other words, the Tribunal has to function within the limits imposed upon it by the Act and has to act according to its provisions. In adjudicating upon a ‘industrial dispute’ the Tribunal cannot arrogate to itself powers which the Legislature alone can confer or do something which the Legislature has not permitted to be done. In R.S. Ramdayal Ghasiram Oil Mills vs. Labour Appellate Tribunal, (1963) 2 LLJ 65 (SC) and West Bengal Press Workers and Employees Union vs. Eighth Industrial Tribunal, (1974) 2 LLJ 404 (SC), the Supreme Court held that the Industrial Tribunal acquires jurisdiction to adjudicate upon an ‘industrial dispute’ only after it has been referred to it. In other words, without such a reference, the Tribunal does not get any such jurisdiction to adjudicate upon any dispute. Wherein an order referred an industrial dispute to a Tribunal under Sec. 10(1) of the Act, the ‘appropriate Government’ has specified the points of dispute for adjudication, the Tribunal shall confine the adjudication to those points and matters incidental thereto. In other words, the Tribunal is not free to enlarge the scope of the dispute referred to it but must confine its adjudication to the points specifically mentioned and anything which is incidental thereto. It is well settled that the order of reference by which an industrial dispute is referred to the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal for adjudication gives jurisdiction to the Labour Court or the Tribunal, as the case may be, to deal with the merits of dispute. This position is well settled by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jharakhand Collieries (P) Limited v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal, [1960] II LLJ (SC), and several other judgments to follow. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal being limited to the matters referred to it by the Government, it would have no right to travel outside the reference, and proceed to adjudicate the matters not referred to it. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal being limited to the matters referred to it by the Government, it would have no right to travel outside the reference, and proceed to adjudicate the matters not referred to it. This position is also well settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court including Gouri Sankar Chatterjee vs. Texmaco Limited and Others, 2000 (8) Supreme 519 , Workmen of British India Corporation Limited vs. British India Corporation Limited, (1965) 11 LLJ 433 (SC), Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company Limited vs. Its Workmen, (1967) 1 LLJ 423 , the Jaipur Udyog Limited vs. The Cement Work Karmachari Sangh, Sahu Nagar, (1972) 1 LLJ 437 and Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company of India Private Limited vs. Workmen, (1981) 2 LLJ 218 , to cite a few. 9. In U.R. Birupakashpa vs. Sarva Mangla, 2009 (2) SCC 177 it has been conclusively held that issues should not be framed without assigning reason and without giving reasonable opportunity of hearing and the same has been held to be unsustainable in the eyes of law as it suffers from jurisdictional error. In 2006 (6) SCALE 107 at paragraph 14, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held as under: “14. In the instant case, the Award of the Labour Court suffers from an illegality which appears on the face of the record. The jurisdiction of the Labour Court emanated from the order of reference. It could not have passed an order going beyond the terms of the reference. While passing the award, if the Labour Court exceeds its jurisdiction the Award must be held to be suffering from a jurisdictional error. It was capable of being corrected by the High Court in exercise of its power of judicial review. The High Court, therefore, clearly fell in error in refusing to exercise its jurisdiction. The Award and the judgment of the High Court, therefore, cannot be sustained. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the High Court is set aside. The award is set aside to the extent of order of reinstatement.” 10. Again in a judgment reported in 2004 (9) SCALE 479, the Hon’ble Supreme Court at paragraph 34 held as under: “....................Furthermore, the Labour Court having derived its jurisdiction from the Reference made by the State Government, it was bound to act within the four-corners thereof. The award is set aside to the extent of order of reinstatement.” 10. Again in a judgment reported in 2004 (9) SCALE 479, the Hon’ble Supreme Court at paragraph 34 held as under: “....................Furthermore, the Labour Court having derived its jurisdiction from the Reference made by the State Government, it was bound to act within the four-corners thereof. It could not enlarge the scope of reference nor could deviate there from. A demand which was not raised at the time of raising the dispute could not have been gone in by the Labour Court being not the subject matter thereof.” 6. It is also a settled law that maintainability of a reference can certainly be agitated since it refers to a jurisdictional issue and the same is always subject to judicial review by the High Court under its Writ Jurisdiction and this issue is no more res- integra and has been upheld time and again by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In Negungadi Bank Ltd. vs. K.P. Madhavan Kutty, 2000 (2) SCC 455 the Hon’ble Supreme Court at paragraph 8 held as under: “It was submitted by the respondent that once a reference has been made under Sec. 10 of the Act a Labour Court has to decide the same and the High Court in writ jurisdiction cannot interfere in the proceedings of the Labour Court. That is not a correct proposition to state. An administrative order which does not take into consideration statutory requirement or travels outside that is certainly subject to judicial review, limited though it might be. The High Court can exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution to consider the question of the very jurisdiction of the Labour Court.” 11. In the matter of Pottery Mazdoor Panchayat vs. Perfect Pottery Co. Ltd. and Another, AIR 1979 SC 1356 , the Supreme Court has held as under: “11. Having heard a closely thought out argument made by Mr. Gupta on behalf of the appellant, we are of the opinion that the High Court is right in its view on the first question. The very terms of the references show that the point of dispute between the parties was not the fact of the closure of its business by the respondent but the propriety and justification of the respondent’s decision to close down the business. The very terms of the references show that the point of dispute between the parties was not the fact of the closure of its business by the respondent but the propriety and justification of the respondent’s decision to close down the business. That is why the references were expressed to say whether the proposed closure of the business was proper and justified. In other words, by the references, the Tribunals were not called upon by the Government to adjudicate upon the question as to whether there was in fact a closure of business or whether under the pretence of closing the business the workers were locked out by the management. The references being limited to the narrow question as to whether the closure was proper and justified, the Tribunals by the very terms of the references, had no jurisdiction to go behind the fact of closure and inquire into the question whether the business was in fact closed down by the management.” 12. In the matter of Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. vs. The Workmen and Others, AIR 1967 SC 469 , while dealing with Sec. 10(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, called the “ID Act”) the Supreme Court held as under: “10. Proceeding in the order in which the arguments were addressed, we propose to deal with issues 3 and 4 first. Under s. 10(1) (d) of the Act, it is open to the appropriate Government when it is of opinion that any industrial dispute exists to make an order in writing referring “the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with, or relevant to, the dispute....... to a Tribunal for adjudication.” Under s. 10(4) “where in an order referring an industrial dispute to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal under this Sec. 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.” 11. From the above it therefore appears that while it is open to the appropriate Government to refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected therewith for adjudication, the Tribunal must confine its adjudication to the points of dispute referred and matters incidental thereto. From the above it therefore appears that while it is open to the appropriate Government to refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected therewith for adjudication, the Tribunal must confine its adjudication to the points of dispute referred and matters incidental thereto. In other words, the Tribunal is not free to enlarge the scope of the dispute referred to it but must confine its attention to the points specifically mentioned and anything which is incidental thereto. The word ‘incidental’ means according to Webster’s New World Dictionary: “happening or likely to happen as a result of or in connection with something more important; being an incident; casual; hence, secondary or minor, but usually associated.” 12. “Something incidental to a dispute” must therefore mean something happening as a result of or; in connection with the dispute or associated with the dispute. The dispute is the fundamental thing while something incidental thereto is an adjunct to it. Something incidental, therefore, cannot cut at the root of the main thing to which it is an adjunct. 13. Taking into consideration the scope of Sec. 10(4) of the ID Act and the construction thereof, the Supreme Court, way back in 1962, in the matter of Express Newspapers Ltd. vs. Their Workers and Staff and Others, 1962 (1) LLJ 227, held as under: “It is hardly necessary to emphasise that since the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal in dealing with industrial disputes referred to it under S.10 is limited by S.10 (4) to the points specifically mentioned in the reference and matters incidental thereto, the appropriate Government should frame the relevant orders of reference carefully and the questions which are intended to be tried by the Industrial Tribunal should be so worded as to leave no scope for ambiguity or controversy. An order of reference hastily drawn or drawn in a casual manner often gives rise to unnecessary disputes and thereby prolongs the life of industrial adjudication which must always be avoided.” 14. An order of reference hastily drawn or drawn in a casual manner often gives rise to unnecessary disputes and thereby prolongs the life of industrial adjudication which must always be avoided.” 14. This Court in a case M/s. Delhi Press vs. K.S. Sidhu, 1979 (38) FLR 415, held that: “...the interference by High Court can be on grounds of defects of jurisdiction, violation of the principles of natural justice or any error of law apparent on the face of the record......The High Court will interfere only if the finding is based on no evidence or is such that it could not have been arrived at on the basis of the material before it.” 15. In the case titled as Syed Yakoob vs. K.S. Radha Krishan, AIR 1964 SC 477 , the Supreme Court has held as under: “.......writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals; these are cases where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals without jurisdiction, or in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdictions. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 16. A bare perusal of all the relevant paras of the impugned order extracted above at para six of the present order clearly indicates that the impugned award of the Tribunal dated 4/11/2019 suffers from illegality, which is apparent from the face of the record. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal emanated from the order of reference (extracted above) and the award suffers from jurisdictional error. The points whether the provisions of the A.P. Para Medical Board Act, 2006 can have retrospective effect on the employees who are working prior to that Act, if so and what kind of relief the employees effected are entitled for, were not raised at the time of raising the dispute and therefore, the same could not have been gone into by the Tribunal being not the subject matter thereof. The Tribunal having derived its jurisdiction from the reference made by the State Government it was bound to act within the four corners thereof and it could not have enlarged the scope of reference nor could deviate therefrom. 17. The Tribunal having derived its jurisdiction from the reference made by the State Government it was bound to act within the four corners thereof and it could not have enlarged the scope of reference nor could deviate therefrom. 17. The error of law apparent on the face of record is as follows: (a) Section 10(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 reads as under: “(4) Where in an order referring an industrial dispute to (a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal) under this Sec. 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 my be) shall confine its adjudication to those points and matters incidental thereto.” (b) An examination of Sec. 10(4) of the ID Act clearly shows that the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal is required to confine its adjudication to the points of disputes referred and the matter incidental thereto. (c) It is not in dispute that the Industrial Tribunal do derive its jurisdiction from the Reference made by the State Government while being bound to act within the four corners thereof and it could not and cannot enlarge the scope of the Reference nor can/could deviate therefrom. A demand which was not raised at the time of raising the dispute could not have gone into by the Industrial Tribunal being not the subject matter thereof. The Reference dated 30.092013 in this matter was quite specific in the following terms:- 1. Whether the Management is justified in treating the technicians as Assistants Technicians on the guise of producing the Registration Certificates from the Para Medical Board.? 2. Whether the Provisions of the A.P. Para Medical Board Act, 2006 can have retrospective effect on the employees who are working prior to that Act if so. 3. What kind of relief the employees effected are entitled for? (c) As per the terms of reference made Under Sec. 10(1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act the Tribunal is expected only to decide whether the management is justified in treating the technicians as Assistants Technicians on the guise of producing the Registration Certificates from the Para Medical Board and what kind of relief the employees are entitled for. (d) The terms of reference not at all referred to the applicability of Minimum Wages Act and application of G.O.Ms. (d) The terms of reference not at all referred to the applicability of Minimum Wages Act and application of G.O.Ms. No. 68, dated 8/12/2011 to the nine employees. But, however, the Tribunal totally misdirected itself and adjudicated and directed the petitioner to pay difference of wages as per the said Minimum Wages G.O. Therefore, the impugned order is totally contrary to the reference made to the said Court. (e) The Tribunal instead of answering the reference as per the terms it travelled beyond the reference. (f) Letter No. 136/APPMB/2013, dated 6/5/2013 of the Andhra Pradesh Para Medical Board addressed to the Administrative Liason, Mahavir Hospital and Research Centre, 10-1-1, Bhagwan Mahavir Marg, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad-500004 reads as under: With reference to your letter cited above, I furnish hereunder the detailed remarks about the authenticity of the certificates enclosed to it. Except the certificate possessed by Serial No. 4, all the other certificates are not valid. 1. Md. Aizaz Khan, ECG & X-rai (1993) Deccan Medical Training Institute This institute is neither permitted by Government nor Recognized by APPMB 2. Mr Syed Sayeed Osman, LT (1999) Deccan Medical Training Institute 3. Mr.Asra Sultana, DMLT – (1996) Princess Durru Shehwar Children’s Hospital It is not a recognized Institute by APPMB 4. Mr Mohammed Ahmed Khan, BBT (2005) Government of Andhra Pradesh Institute was permitted by Government of AP Individual has not registered with APPMB. Please advise him to register the certificate with APPMB immediately. 5. Ms. Fatima Ahrestani, E.C.G.(1994) Royal Medical Society’s 6. Ms. Rizwana Begum, DMLT (1998) Shoieb Educational Society This Institute is neither permitted by Government nor Recognized by APPMB 7. Md. Mateen Yezdani, LT (2000) Oxford Medical Welfare Society (g) As per the letter dated 6/5/2013, extracted above, of the A.P. Para Medical Board, it is very clear that the qualification certificates produced by the said employees referred to in the letter dated 6/5/2013 (Ex.R.6) are neither recognised nor registered by the A.P. Para Medical Board and further the said employees are not registered with the A.P. Para Medical Board nor worked as compounders at any point of time to claim the wages under Part D(1) G.O.Ms. No. 68 (Labour, Employment/Training Factories Department), Lab-II, Department, dated 8/12/2011. However, the Tribunal misinterpreted the said G.O.Ms. No. 68 and concluded that the said claimants are having five years experience as compounders, which is factually incorrect. 18. No. 68 (Labour, Employment/Training Factories Department), Lab-II, Department, dated 8/12/2011. However, the Tribunal misinterpreted the said G.O.Ms. No. 68 and concluded that the said claimants are having five years experience as compounders, which is factually incorrect. 18. This Court is of the firm opinion that the impugned order suffers from a jurisdictional error and the Tribunal enlarged the scope of dispute referred to it instead of confining its attention to the points specifically mentioned in the order of reference dated 30/9/2013. In view of the fact that the reference being limited to the narrow question as to whether the management is justified in treating the technicians as assistant Technicians on the guise of producing the Registration Certificate from the Para Medical Board, the Tribunal by the very terms of its reference had no jurisdiction to inquire into the question about the applicability of Minimum Wages Act and G.O.Ms. No. 68, dated 8/12/2011 to the nine employees and admittedly the issue which was not raised at the time of raising the dispute could not have been gone into by the Labour Court being not the subject matter thereof. 19. Taking into consideration the above referred facts and circumstances and the law laid down by the various Apex Court judgments referred to and discussed above, the impugned award passed by the 1st respondent-Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabad in I.D. No. 3 of 2013, dated 4/11/2019, which was published by the Government of Telangana vide G.O.Rt. No. 135, dated 18/3/2020 is set aside and accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.