JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner has filed this petition by calling in question order dtd. 6/12/2012 passed by the Labour Court, Bhopal. The facts as elaborated in the petition reveal that the respondent herein approached the labour Court by filing claim to the effect that he was an employee with the present petitioner/ employer from 1997 to 2000. However, his services were abruptly terminated in the year 2000 which ensued in filing a statement of claim raising dispute before the labour Court. The labour Court after trial, vide order dtd. 6/12/2012 though concluded that the employee has failed to establish that he has worked for a period of 240 days in a calendar year but taking into consideration, the evidence of management witness Shri Shyam Babu Dixit, issued a direction to the respondents to engage the respondent/workman as a daily wage worker. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submit that the award passed by the labour Court is beyond the scope of interference. The further submission of the counsel is that when the labour Court came to a categorical conclusion that employee had not completed 240 days in calendar year, therefore, there was no occasion to pass an order directing the petitioner/ employer to engage the workman as a daily wage employee. Thus, while relying upon the judgment of Zonal Manager, Uco Bank Vs. General Secretary reported in 2017(4) M.P.L.J submit that labour Court has exceeded its jurisdiction and thus prays that the order impugned be set aside. 3. Per contra, Shri Rajneesh Gupta appearing on behalf of Workman submit that the labour Court while taking into consideration, the testimony of Shri Shyam Babu Dixit who stood as a witness on behalf of management, passed the order directing the petitioner/employer to consider the case of the petitioner for engaging him as a daily wage employee. 4. Learned counsel for respondent further submit that the inability of the employee to produce the record pertaining to the deployment of the workman with the petitioner/employer was also taken note of inasmuch as, there was complete failure on the part of the employer to produce the record from 1995- 2000, during which period, the workman was deployed with the employer. Thus, submits that the order passed by the labour Court being innocuous and requires no interference. Heard the rival submission of the parties and perused the record. 5. Thus, submits that the order passed by the labour Court being innocuous and requires no interference. Heard the rival submission of the parties and perused the record. 5. The labour Court while taking cognizance of the reference made to it, proceeded to try the case and considered the statement of the witness of the employer namely Mr. Shyam Babu Dixit that the respondent/ workman worked with the employer in the year 1999. This witness further stated that the employees who were retained as daily wage employee were being paid wages at the Collector rate. The witness further expressed his inability as regards the availability of muster of daily wage employee from 1995 to 2000. Therefore, though the labour Court came to a conclusion that the workman has failed to establish that he has worked for 240 days in a calendar year but taking into consideration, the fact that the respondent/workman was employed with the petitioner as daily wage employee therefore, while taking into consideration the financial status of the respondent/workman, the direction was issued to the employer to engage the respondent/ workman as a daily wage employee. 6. In the considered view of this Court, to decide the question of the jurisdiction of the labour Court in passing the order directing the employer to engage the workman as a daily wage employee, the reference referred to labour Court is required to be scrutinized. The reference is reproduced herein : ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... A perusal of the reference shows that the same provided that as to whether the termination of the employee is valid and if not then he is entitled for what relief and what directions are required to be issued to the employer? In view of the aforesaid reference, the labour Court was required to answer the same on the basis of evidence as to whether the termination of the respondent/workman was valid and if the termination was not valid then what relief could have been extended to the workman. In the present case, the findings as arrived at by the labour Court in Paragraph 10 reflect that the workman failed to establish that he has worked for 240 days in a calendar year. Simultaneously, if Paragraph 11 is perused, the labour Court specifically held that the termination of the workman was not invalid and nor amounted to illegal retrenchment. In the present case, the findings as arrived at by the labour Court in Paragraph 10 reflect that the workman failed to establish that he has worked for 240 days in a calendar year. Simultaneously, if Paragraph 11 is perused, the labour Court specifically held that the termination of the workman was not invalid and nor amounted to illegal retrenchment. Thus, in the considered view of this Court, when the labour Court itself concluded in unequivocal terms that the termination of the workman was not invalid and the workman further failed to establish that he has worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year, the directions which are contained in operative paragraph 13 of the impugned order are beyond the scope of reference. 7. The Apex Court in the judgment of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Vs. Om Prakash Sharma in Appeal (Civil) No.2636/2006 has held as under : "In the instant case, the Award of the Labour Court suf ers 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 suf ering 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." (MANINDER S BHATTI) JUDGE [Please also see Mukand Ltd. Vs. Mukand Staf and Of icer's Association reported in (2004) 10 SCC 460.] The directions which are contained in Paragraph 13 of the impugned award based on equity however, the labour Court under the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act can take cognizance of the matter on the basis of reference referred to it in accordance with Sec. 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The reference specifically reveals that the same was only confined to grant of relief to the workman in the event of his termination having been found invalid. Thus, since the termination of the workman has not been found invalid/ illegal by the labour Court itself, the direction issued in paragraph 13 of the order to the employer to engage the workman as a daily wage labour is beyond jurisdiction of labour Court. Thus, in the considered view of this Court, the labour Court while issuing directions which are contained in Paragraph 13 of the order has exceeded its jurisdiction. Accordingly, directions contained in paragraph 13 of the order dtd. 6/12/2012 passed by labour Court contained in Annexure P/1, is set aside. The remaining order passed by labour Court dtd. 6/12/2012 shall remain intact. With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed.