Sambuddha Chakrabarti, J. - (1.) It so happens at times, even if not very frequently, that litigants with motivations as diverse as ranging from abundant precaution to over -scared defensive response or even as a foolproof mode of attack, bred in turn by either fear psychosis or a bid to ensure an absolute safety without leaving any loose end, choose to canvass more points than necessary or assail more aspects or orders passed in a proceeding not strictly required for the end -product. Such acts, for the very purpose they seek to achieve, are explicable and, therefore, not blameworthy. If on one count litigants get relief from a court of law the other point or points become redundant or even not worthy of any serious consideration.
(2.) The case in hand is a perfect example of our shared experience of one such defensive attack.
(3.) The petitioner has assailed an order of reference by the Government of India by which it referred the dispute between the employer in relation to the management of M/s. Navnil Enterprise and their workmen in respect of matters specified in the schedule for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, Kolkata as well as an order dated March 12, 2014 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal ('the Tribunal' for short) in Reference No. 9 of 2012.;