The Government has the power to amend the reference made under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, and the erratum issued by the Government on 9-10-1958 was not defective as not having been issued in conformity with Article 166 of the Constitution.

M. SESHACHALAPATI, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to call for the records relating to and quash the Award dated 9-3-1959 passed in the Industrial Dispute No. 13 of 1958 on the file of the Labour Court, Hyderabad.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is the management of the Daily News, Secunderabad represented by the Managing Editor. The 1st respondent is the Daily News Press Workers Union. The 1st respondent herein submitted to the Management a memorandum of grievances. The matter raised by the workers was referred to the Conciliation Officer who started work on 2-7-1958. On 1-7-1958, the Managing Editor suspended two employees, Satya Seela and Satyanarayana, the office boy and the Asst. Foreman respectively in the Daily News until further orders for removing certain important papers without the permission of the Management. The Conciliation proceedings failed. By G. O. No. 1995 Home (Labour) Department dated 22/08/1958, the Government of Andhra Pradesh referred for adjudication an industrial dispute between the workmen and the employers of the Daily News under Section 10 (i) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act (Central Act XIV of 1947 ). In the annexure to the order the following matters of dispute were recited : 1. Whether the following demands of workmen arc tenable : (i) graded salaries to all the workers. (ii) D. A. at a flat rate of Rs. 50. (iii) Leave facilities. (iv) Bonus. (v) Permanency of the daily workers and fixation of their emoluments in graded salaries. 2. Whether the termination of services of M/s. Satyanarayana and Satya Seela are justified. It not, to what relief they are entitled. After the receipt of this reference the Labour Court registered the dispute as case No. 13 of 1958 on its file. The workmen submitted a statement of their grievances and their demands. The Management filed two counter statements traversing and controverting the demands made by the workmen. On 9-10-1958 a memorandum No. 97417-Labour/1/58-9 styled as an erratum was issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh reciting that in item 2 of the annexure to the Notification dated 22-8-1958, the words "termination of services" should be read as "suspension of services". The Labour Court formulated the points arising for consideration in these terms : 1. Whether this Court is competent to adjudicate upon the reference ? 2. Whether the following demands of the workmen are tenable ? (a) Graded salaries to all workers. (b) D. A. at a flat rate of Rs. 50. 00. (c) Leave facilities. (d) Bonus. (e) Permanency of daily workers and fixation of their emoluments in graded salaries.

( 3 ) WHETHER the suspension of M/s. Satyanarayana and Sheela is justified?

( 4 ) IF not, to what relief are they entitled?3. On the 1st point it held that the reference was within the competence of the Government and that the Labour Court had also jurisdiction to try and determine the matters referred to it. As to the questions covered by point No. 2, the Labour Court held against the workmen and rejected their demands. As to issue No. 3 relating to the suspension of the workers M/s. Satyanarayana and Satya Sheela, the Labour Court held that their suspension was unjustified and on issue 4 it directed the reinstatement of the two workers. This writ petition is filed for quashing of the Award in so far as it relates to the cases of M/s. Satyanarayana and Satya Sheela. 4. The main contentions in the affidavit filed in support of the petition are: (i) that there was no industrial dispute within the meaning of Section 2 (k) of the Act; (ii) that in the annexure to the G. O. 1995 Home (Labour II) Department dated 22/08/1958, the reference was with respect to termination of services of the two workmen while there was no such termination; (iii) that the Government was not competent to amend a reference made under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act by substituting the expression "suspension" in the place of "termination"; (iv) that in any view the ame

Click Here to Read the rest of this document