Tribunal jurisdiction under industrial disputes law is limited to the reference; prior bonus settlements did not bar fresh adjudication.

A tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act is confined to the points expressly referred and matters incidental to them; it cannot go behind the reference to re-open the existence of a strike, sit-down strike, or lock-out assumed in the reference, though parties may lead evidence on justification, legality, or whether an industrial dispute exists at all. Prior settlements did not finally bar adjudication of the 1964-65 bonus allocation dispute because the earlier agreement concerned prior years and the later settlement only contemplated future calculation under the statutory bonus formula, without conclusively settling capital and reserve allocation. The strike-related issues remained within the reference, while the bonus allocation question stayed open for evidence and decision.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, on the terms of reference under the Industrial Disputes Act, the Tribunal could go behind the recitals in the reference and examine whether there was in fact no strike, sit-down strike, or lock-out. (ii) Whether the prior settlements between the parties barred adjudication of the bonus allocation issue for the accounting year ending 30-6-1965.

Issue (i): Whether, on the terms of reference under the Industrial Disputes Act, the Tribunal could go behind the recitals in the reference and examine whether there was in fact no strike, sit-down strike, or lock-out.

Analysis: The statutory scheme confined adjudication to the points of dispute referred and matters incidental thereto. A tribunal could not enlarge the scope of a reference by questioning the very foundation on which the reference was framed where the reference proceeded on the basis that a strike, sit-down strike, and lock-out existed. The parties could place evidence before the Tribunal to explain or justify their conduct and could also show that the dispute was not an industrial dispute at all, but they could not challenge the basic assumption embodied in the reference itself.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was not competent to reopen the existence of the strike, sit-down strike, or lock-out stated in the reference; it could only decide whether they were justified and legal, and the question of wages for the relevant periods.

Issue (ii): Whether the prior settlements between the parties barred adjudication of the bonus allocation issue for the accounting year ending 30-6-1965.

Analysis: The earlier settlement of 27-10-1964 related to bonus claims for earlier years and did not bind the parties on the allocation of capital and reserves for 1964-65. The later settlement of 13-12-1965 re-affirmed the earlier arrangement and dealt mainly with additional bonus for 1963-64; clause 6 only contemplated that bonus for 1964-65 would be calculated on the basis of the formula under sections 6 and 7 of the Payment of Bonus Act and that negotiations on the rate would start thereafter. It did not amount to a concluded agreement barring inquiry into the disputed allocation for 1964-65.

Conclusion: The bonus allocation issue was not barred by any binding settlement and had to be adjudicated on evidence.

Final Conclusion: The management succeeded only on the jurisdictional objection relating to issues 3 and 4, while the bonus allocation dispute remained open for adjudication; the matters concerning the strike-related issues were confined to the terms of reference and the bonus issue was remitted for decision.

---