The main legal point established in the judgment is that a reference made by the State Government under the Industrial Disputes Act can be amended by way of addition or modification, but the amendment should not have the effect of withdrawing or superseding the original reference.

Tukol, J.

1. This writ petition raises a question relating to the scope and the extent of the power of the State Government to amend a reference made under S. 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to an industrial tribunal for adjudication.

2. The material facts relating to the issue are not in dispute. The petitioner is Chandra Spinning and Weaving Mills, Ltd., Bangalore (hereinafter called the Chandra Mills), while the three respondents are respectively the State Government, the industrial tribunal and the workmen of the Chandra Mills. The petitioner employs about 420 workers. The workers went on strike sometime about 17 March 1959 as a protest against the transfer of six workmen from one shift to another and put forward certain demands. The conciliation officer tried to bring about an amicable settlement of the dispute but his efforts proved abortive. The workmen complained that they had been illegally dismissed from service and that they were all entitled to reinstatement with back-wages. The State Government made reference No. LIH 503/ILD. 58, dated 5 October 1959, in exercise of the powers conferred by C1. (d) of Sub-section (1) of S. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947) (hereinafter called the Act), referring the following points for adjudication to the industrial tribunal at Bangalore :

"Points for dispute : 1. Is the Management justified in dismissing the 416 workmen specified in the schedule enclosed with effect from 26 March 1959 ? 2. Are the said workmen entitled to be reinstated with full compensation for the entire period of involuntary unemployment ?

To what relief, if any, are the affected workmen entitled ?"

3. On receipt of this reference, the industrial tribunal gave notices to the parties to file their statements. The tribunal settled the issues for determination on 23 December 1959 and recorded the evidence of one witness in full and of another witness in part on behalf of the workmen. At that stage the State Government issued the following order purporting to amend the aforesaid reference : "GOVERNMENT OF MYSORE Mysore Government Secretariat, Vidhana Soudh, Bangalore, dated 9 March 1960 (S.E. 1881) No. LIH 503/ILD 58. Order In exercise of the powers conferred, by Sub-section (4) of S. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Government of Mysore hereby specifies the points of dispute and directs that the points of dispute referred to in Government Order No. LIH 503/ILD 58, dated 5 October 1959, regarding the industrial dispute between the workmen and the management of Chandra Spinning Weaving Mills (Private)., Ltd., Bangalore-2, shall be amended as follows :-

1. Is the management justified in refusing work to 416 workmen specified in the schedule enclosed with effect from 26 March 1959, and dismissing 54 workmen and discharging 41 workmen subsequently out of the 416 workmen ? 2. Are the said workmen entitled to be reinstated with full compensation for the entire period of involuntary unemployment ? 3. To what relief, if any, are the affected workmen entitled ? (By order and in the name of the Governor of Mysore) (Sd./-) I. S. SHAIKH, Under Secretary to Government L.S.G. and Public Health Department."

3. On receipt of the fresh reference, the parties filed fresh statements. The Chandra Mills challenged the validity and the tenability of the reference dated 9 March 1960 on the ground that the Government had neither power to amend the reference already made nor to make a fresh reference in respect of the points already referred to the tribunal. This question of jurisdiction was considered as a preliminary issue and the presiding officer of the tribunal came to the conclusion that

"When the Government amend, amplify or add to the reference by a memorandum or notification, it will not be contravening the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, as in they case of cancellation or supersession of the reference altogether."

4. The presiding officer was of the opinion that poi