IMPORTANT POINT
Where the name of the workman was wrongly described in the reference order and before Labour Court no preliminary objection as to the validity of reference was raised by the employer and when during evidence employer took the stand that no such workman was ever employed, the workman moved the Government to correct name in reference but the Labour Court without waiting for correction passed award holding that there was no industrial dispute, and on correction of the reference the workman made application to the Labour Court for appropriate action which was rejected on the ground that no amendment could be made after the award, the Supreme Court held that after the amendment of reference, the Labour Court had got jurisdiction and could proceed taking the reference, to be valid from the date of amendment.

JUDGMENT

D.P. Wadhwa, J.-Leave granted.

2. Appellant Madan Pal Singh is aggrieved by judgment dated October 7, 1998 of the Allahabad High Court dismissing his writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the writ petition he had challenged the Award dated January 31, 1992 of the Labour Court, Ghaziabad holding that there is no industrial dispute between him and the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) Ghaziabad.

3. By order dated September 16, 1988 State of UP referred the following question for adjudication by the Labour Court:-

"Whether the termination dated July 5. If we now refer to the Award dated January 31, 1992 it will be seen that application before the Conciliation Officer was filed by the appellant on May 20, 1986. The appellant had demanded for regularisation of his services. His services were terminated on July 8, 1986. He demanded from his employer, the NOIDA, on October 3, 1986 that he be taken back in service and paid full back wages. He termed his termination as unjustified and illegal. Since there was no response from the employers the appellant raised the industrial dispute. It was contended by the management that it was an Authority run by the State of U.P. and had its own rules and regulations. According to management U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was not applicable to them and that the workman was governed by the provisions of the Public Service Tribunal Act, 1976. It was, therefore, submitted by the management that the order of reference of the State of U.P. was liable to be rejected as the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate on the order of reference. On facts the management alleged that Madan Pal Singh had been a casual labourer on daily wages on temporary basis from time to time and on the expiry of the limited period his services used to be terminated. It was also submitted that the appellant was never employed on any permanent post nor was he made permanent and since he was working as casual labourer, as and when required, his services were liable to be terminated at any time without giving any notice or reason. It was also submitted that appellant did not work continuously and that he worked with break from time to time. It was further submitted that services of the appellant were not satisfactory and his services could not be continued. There was no violation of any service rules in terminating the services of the appellant. Lastly, it was submitted that the appellant was gainfully employed and that evidence would be adduced for the purpose. In support of his case Madan Pal Singh examined himself. Evidence was led on behalf of the management. In his statement Pratap Kumar, Pariyojna Abhiyanta on behalf of the management said that no one by the name Madan Lal was ever employed and services of no Madan Lal were terminated on July 8, 1986. In cross-examination, however, he admitted that he knew Madan Lal and Madan Pal who was present in the Court. He denied that Madan Pal s services had been illegally terminated.

6. When the appellant came to know that his name was written as Madan Lal in the reference order he wrote to the Joint Secretary to the Government of U.P. on September 19, 1991 for correction of the mistake. Appellant sought adjournment from the Labour Court on the ground that he was getting the reference amended. This was objected to by the employer. However, Labour Court, after hearing the parties, concluded that instead of Madan Pal the name of Madan Lal had been mentioned and that there was no dispute between Madan Lal and the management. It said that in spite of the time having been given to the appellant to get the reference amended and mistake rectified nothing was done till the date of the Award. It, therefore, held that there was no relationship between Madan Lal and the management and there was no industrial dispute existing till then. That being so there was no question of terminating the services of Madan Lal and that due to all these re