“6. Lastly, it was urged on behalf of the workman that even though his service was less than 240 days, he was entitled to re-employment in terms of Section 25H of the Act. This may be so, but the dispute regarding his re-employment in terms of Section 25H had not been referred to the Labour Court and, therefore, it could not be adjudicated upon. It is well settled that the Labour Courts and Tribunals under the Act are not Courts of plenary jurisdiction and the limits of their jurisdictions are circumscribed by the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 10 of the Act according to which the Labour Court has to confine its adjudication to the points of dispute specifically referred to it under Section 10(1) of the Acts. What was referred in the instant case was the dispute relating to his termination and not the one which he sought to raise before the Labour Court regarding his employment. Re-employment in terms of Section 25H of the Act pre-supposes a valid termination in the first instance and therefore, constitutes a different cause of action and can be gone into by the Labour Court only if a reference is to be made in this regard but not otherwise. It cannot be described as a matter incidental to the dispute relating to termination.”
