The Government has the competency to make a correction of a clerical error in the reference of an industrial dispute to a Labour Court, and such correction does not amount to withdrawal or cancellation of the reference.

Judgement

BHARGAVA, J :- The Government of Bihar, by an Order, dated 14th June 1961, referred an industrial dispute under S 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 (14 of 1947) to the Labour Court, Patna wherein the following two issues were referred :

(1) Whether the discharge of the following forty workmen was proper? If not, whether they are enticed to reinstatement and/or any other relief ?

(2) Whether the above-mentioned workmen are entitled to be made permanent?"Subsequently, the Government issued an Order by way of corrigendum on the 19th July 1961, substituting "Ranchi" for "Patna" in the original order of reference, dated 14th June 1861. The effect of this corrigendum was that the reference of the dispute, instead of being made to the Labour Court, Patna, came before the Labour Court, Ranchi. In the proceedings before that Court, the principal objection that was raised was that the Government, having once made a reference to the Labour Court, Patna, was not competent to cancel or withdraw that reference and could not make a competent reference of the same industrial dispute to the Labour Court, Ranchi, so that the latter Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the reference. The case before the Labour Court was also contested on various other grounds, but we need only mention those grounds which have been urged before us in this appeal. While the Labour Court was dealing with the reference, adjournments were sought on behalf of the appellant, M/s. Dabur (Dr. S. K. Burman) Private Ltd. After decision of some preliminary points by the order, dated 18th August 1962, the case was fixed for hearing on 19th November 1962. On that date, the management again prayed for an adjournment on the ground that their local Manager, Sri Basant Jha, had been lying ill for some time past and it was not possible for the management to prosecute their case with diligence. The Labour Court rejected this application and, thereupon, proceeded to hear the reference ex parte.

2. The Labour Court held that the reference to it was competent and it had Jurisdiction to deal with it, even though, by the original order of reference, the Government had purported to refer the dispute to the Labour Court, Patna. On the first issue referred, the Court recorded the finding that the 40 workmen, who had been discharged, were not casual workers and that their discharge by the employers on the basis that they were casual workers was not proper. It was further held that the discharge was mala fide inasmuch as the purpose of the discharge was to avoid the liability of treating these workmen as permanent employees by preventing them from completing 240 days of work in a year. There was the further finding that the workmen were all discharged from service as they had demanded increase in rates of wages and had also claimed that Sundays should be made paid holidays. Against this award, the appellant filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Patna requesting that Court to quash the award. That Court upheld the award and dismissed the writ petition. Consequently, the appellant has come up to this Court by special leave against that Judgment of the High Court.

3. Mr. Gokhale, appearing on behalf of the appellant, emphatically urged that both the Labour Court, Ranchi as well as the Patna High Court were wrong in holding that the reference to the Labour Court, Ranchi, was competent even after the reference had originally been made to the Labour Court, Patna. He relied on the principle laid down by this Court that once the Government has made a reference to a particular Labour Court, it is that Labour Court which becomes seized of that industrial dispute and, thereafter, the Government has no jurisdiction either to withdraw that reference or cancel it. In this case, however, as is clear from the judgment of the High Court, the question that arose was entirely different. The High Court has clearly held that this was not a case where the Gover