AMITAVA LALA, J. - (1.) A very interesting question of law is involved in this matter, which can be dealt with without any exchange of affidavits. Accordingly, the parties have accepted the position arid wanted to argue at length. The main contesting parties are the petitioners (hereinafter called as the ("management") and the fourth respondent (hereinafter called as the "workman"). The issues under the order of reference dated March 5, 2002, are as follows. "(1) Whether the termination of service of Shri Samir Kumar Das with effect from June 15, 2001, by the management is justified? (2) What relief, if any, is Sri Das entitled to?"
(2.) According to Mr. Partha Sarathi Sengupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the "management" the fourth respondent was never terminated from the service but he abandoned himself from rendering service to the "management". In such circumstances, if the appropriate Government feels to refer the matter to the Industrial Tribunal, the issues should be framed keeping room open for both the parties to get an appropriate adjudication on the basis of the order of reference. It is well-settled that the Tribunal cannot proceed beyond the scope and ambit of the order of reference excepting incidental questions connected therewith. The question of abandonment of service of the "workman" cannot be construed as an incidental issue.
(3.) On the other hand, Mr. Madhusudan Dutta, learned counsel, appearing for the "workman" contended that at this belated stage, i. e., when the proceeding is pending before the Tribunal, the "management" cannot raise this issue by invoking the writ jurisdiction. This question would have been decided by the Tribunal itself.;