BHARATI SAPRU, J. - (1.) THE present writ petition has been filed against an award passed by the Labour Court dated 20.12.1996 in adjudication case No. 222 of 1989.
(2.) I have heard Sri Arvind Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.K. Misra learned Counsel for the respondent workman. The reference which was sought in the present case is quoted herein below: "KYA SEWAYOJAKON DWARA APNE SHRAMIK PHOOL CHAND PUTRA SURYA NARAYAN LAL KO 1.5.1988 NIYAMIT KULI KA PADNAM EVAM VAITENMAN NA DIYA JANA UCHIT TATHA/ATHWA VAIDHANIK HAI? YADI NAHI TO SHRAMIK KYA LABH/ANUTOSH PANE KA ADHIKARI HAI?" It is well-settled that the Labour Court is a Court of referred jurisdiction and must confine itself to the reference that is before it. It cannot travel beyond the reference.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has argued that in the present award, the claim of the workman was that he should have been regularized in service. While answering the reference, the Labour Court has recorded a finding that the termination of the workman was bad and violative of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. This issue was not in reference before the Labour Court.;