Labour award cannot be expanded to higher wages where the reference was limited and Section 17A was treated as unenforceable.

A labour award confined to dismissal, reinstatement and back wages could not be expanded to include a separate claim for higher wages, because the Labour Court was limited to the issues actually referred for adjudication. Section 17A of the Industrial Disputes Act was described as operating only where enforcement of an award would be inexpedient on public grounds affecting national economy or social justice, and not as a route for an individual workman to seek higher wages. The text also notes that Section 17A had been treated by other High Courts as unconstitutional and unenforceable, so no direction could be issued to the State to modify the award.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to a writ directing the State to modify the labour award under Section 17A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 so as to secure higher wages, and whether such relief could be granted when the claim for higher wages was not part of the reference and Section 17A was held to be unconstitutional and unenforceable.

Analysis: The reference before the Labour Court was confined to the legality of dismissal and the consequential relief of reinstatement with back wages. The claim for higher wages was not one of the issues referred for adjudication, and the Labour Court could not enlarge the scope of the reference. Section 17A was found to operate only where enforcement of an award would be inexpedient on public grounds affecting national economy or social justice, which does not extend to an individual workman's claim for higher wages. The Court also accepted the view that Section 17A had been held unconstitutional and unenforceable by other High Courts and, on that basis, no direction could be issued to the State to modify the award.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to the relief sought, and no direction could be issued under Section 17A to modify the award for higher wages.

---