IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction APPELLATE SIDE Present: The Hon’ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) WPA 16655 of 2026 The Institution of Engineers (India) VS Union of India & Ors. For the Petitioner : Mr. Soumya Majumder, Sr. Adv., Mr. Indranil Munshi. For the Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Siddhartha Banerjee, Mr. Mainak Ganguly, Mr. A. Kumar, Ms. R. Dasi. For the Union of India : Mr. Shiv Chandra Prasad, Ms. Debjani Ghoshal. Judgment reserved on : 05.08.2026 Judgment delivered on : 13.08.2026 2 Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.: 1. Learned counsel, Mr. Ganguly, appearing for the respondent no.3 relying on the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5758 of 2012 (M/s. Creative Garments Ltd. Vs. Kashiram Verma) has raised an issue that the petitioner herein is now required to implead all the workers in the present case along with their addresses and they have to be served individually. 2. Mr. Majumder, learned senior counsel, appearing for the petitioner, countered the said argument by submitting that the petitioner cannot go beyond the order of reference, which does not give the details of the 61 others, who have been added with the respondent no.3. 3. It is further submitted that even the Tribunal or the Court cannot go beyond the reference. As such the petitioner herein is not in a position to implead the said 61 workers, who have been referred only as 61 others in the reference. 4. It is further submitted by Mr. Majumder, that it is the Government who has made the reference which alone can correct/amend any error in the order of reference and none else and if the said details are provided in a reference, then as per direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Creative Garment Ltd. (Supra), the petitioner is legally bound to implead them. Thus, it is the duty of the Government to put the details in the order of reference when such reference is made, otherwise the petitioner in no way can differ with the reference in any manner whatsoever. 3 5. It is further stated that the reference in the present case was made much prior to the judgment in Creative Garments Ltd. (Supra). 6. Learned counsel for the respondent no.3 countered the said argument by stating that the Government in this case is not duty bound to do so, and that it is the duty of the petitioner. 7. On hearing the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the materials on record and also the view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. Creative Garments Ltd. Versus Kashiram Verma (Supra), this Court finds that the Apex Court in the judgment under reference held:- “11. Before parting with the order, this Court would like to direct the authorities working under the various labour laws to take some corrective steps. 22. The aforesaid Codes are yet to be enforced. With the enforcement of 4 Labour Codes, we are hopeful that in future, when rules are framed, authorities will take care that parties to the dispute furnish their permanent addresses in the cases relating to labour law disputes. 23. In future all the cases to be filed and in all the pending cases, the parties shall be required to furnish their permanent address(es). Even if the representative of the workman is appearing, he shall furnish permanent address of the workman as well. Even in proceedings subsequent to first stage, it shall be mandatory to provide permanent address of the party for 4 his service. Merely mentioning through Labour Union or authorised representatives, who are sometimes union leaders or legal practitioners, will not be sufficient. Service of notice of workman will have to be effected on the permanent address of the workman.” 8. It appears from the observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court in para 11 and para 22, that the Court passed directions upon the authorities to ensure that the permanent addresses as noted of the workmen be given in the proceedings. 9. It is in paragraph 23 of M/s. Creative Garments (Supra) that the Court has directed that the representative of the workmen shall furnish the permanent address of all workmen. 10. In the present case the reference before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal and Ors., is a reference made by the Central Government and the order reads as follows:- “NO. Kol.-700020/15/2025, Dy.CLC(C): WHEREAS, the undersigned is of the opinion that an industrial dispute exists between the employer in relation to the management of The Institution of Engineers (India) and Ms Paramita Mukherjee and Sixty others in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule belovw; AND WHEREAS, the undersigned considers it desirable to refer the said dispute for adjudication; 5 NOW THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (5) of Section 12 read with sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) on the Central Government and Delegated to the undersigned in pursuance of the Notifications of the Government of India, in the Ministry of Labour & Employment published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary Part II, Section 3, Sub-Section (ii) vide S.O. 1262 (E) and 1263(E) both dated the 17.03.2023, the undersigned after complying with the relevant conditions of the said Notifications hereby refers said dispute for adjudication to the CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Kolkata. The said Tribunal shall give its award within a period of three months on the reference specified in the Scheduled below. The Schedule "The dispute regarding the 'reduction and discontinuation of allowances and benefits' raised by the applicants against the management of The Institution of Engineers (India), raises the question of whether the Central Government or the State Government is the appropriate Government' in this matter?"” 11. Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 lays down:- “10. Reference of disputes to Boards, Courts or Tribunals.- (1) [Where the appropriate Government is of 6 opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, it may at any time], by order in writing- (a) refer the dispute to a Board for promoting a settlement thereof; or (b) refer any matter appearing to be connected with or relevant to the dispute to a Court for inquiry; or [(c) refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with, or relevant to, the dispute, if it relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule, to a Labour Court for adjudication; or] [(d) refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with, or relevant to, the dispute, whether it relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule or the Third Schedule, to a Tribunal for adjudication: Provided that where the dispute relates to any matter specified in the Third Schedule and is not likely to affect more than one hundred workmen the appropriate Government may, if it so thinks fit, make the reference to a Labour Court under clause (c):] …………………………………. [(4) Where in an order referring an industrial dispute to [a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal] under this section or in a subsequent order, the appropriate Government has specified the points of dispute for adjudication, [the Labour Court or the Tribunal or the National Tribunal, as the case may be,] shall confine its adjudication to those points and matters incidental thereto.]……………..…..” 12. It is trite that Tribunal gets jurisdiction to pass the Award in terms of reference. Tribunal cannot go beyond the terms of reference nor avoid deciding a point in reference while passing an Award. 13. In view of the judgment in M/s. Creative Garments (Supra), the reference is now in complete and thus not valid and the appropriate 7 government has to now make a fresh reference as per the observations in this judgment. 14. In the present case admittedly it is the appropriate Government which has made the reference and the Tribunal cannot go beyond the reference. In the present case, the 61 employees have not been mentioned by name and as such the addresses are also not part of the reference. 15. As such the power to modify a reference in this case lies only with the appropriate Government, who is the authority empowered to make a fresh reference, in this case, due to change of circumstances (M/s. Creative Garments (Supra)). More so, as the representative of the workmen can not have the discretion to add the names of the 61 workmen referred to in the order of reference. 16. In M/s. Creative Garments (Supra), an award of the Labour Court was challenged. It is not apparent as to whether the order or the award of the Labour Court was on the basis of any reference or whether the Union had moved the Labour Court directly and as such cannot be ascertained as to whether it required any modification of an order of reference. 17. Considering the fact that, as the power to modify or make a fresh reference lies, exclusively with the appropriate government, this Court in view of the judgment in M/s. Creative Garments Ltd. Versus Kashiram Verma (Supra) and the direction at para 23 therein, has no other option but to set aside the impugned order along with the order of reference with liberty to the appropriate government to make a fresh 8 reference, following the direction in paragraph 23 of the judgment in M/s. Creative Garments Ltd. Versus Kashiram Verma (Supra). 18. Thus, the order of reference dated 20.08.2025 of the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) and the Reference Case No. 13 of 2025 pending before the learned CGIT, Kolkata are quashed and set aside. 19. The writ application is accordingly disposed of. 20. Applications, if any, connected thereto stand disposed of consequently. 21. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 22. Photostat certified copy of this Judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all formalities. (Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)