( 1 ) RULE. Service of Rule is waived by learned advocate Mr. K. M. Patel for the respondent.

( 2 ) THE challenge in this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is against rejection of a reference of an industrial dispute in References No. 194 of 1987 by the Labour Court at Navsari recorded on 28. 9. 1995 at the instance of the unsuccessful workman.

( 3 ) AFTER having examined the facts and circumstances and having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties, and considering the celebrated principle that procedural law is hand-made and not mistress, this court is satisfied that the impugned award rejecting the References is not only unjustified but radiates an imprint of misreading of cause title and evidence and also tainted with illegality requiring interference of this court in this petition.

( 4 ) THE Labour Court in its award has mainly rejected the References on the ground that it was against a dead person. In this connection, it may be mentioned that a reference under Sec. 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (id Act) was referred to the labour court in respect of an industrial dispute between employer and employee whose names are mentioned in the cause title and in the references itself. A bare perusal of the title leaves no manner of doubt that the first party employer consisted of mohanbhai Kansara and Maheshbhai Kansara C/o Naran Lala Metal Works, Navsari; obviously, the second partys name is that of a workman about which there is no dispute. The Labour court could not have and should not have rejected the reference in toto merely on the ground that one Mohanbhai Kansara was a dead person at the time when the reference came to be made though one Maheshbhai Kansara was also one of the persons on the employer side. Apart from that, in reality, what was in the mind of the parties is exhibited and manifested from the record and it was, as such, reference of an industrial dispute between employer Naran Lala Metal Works, Company on one side and the respondent- original applicant-workman Natubhai Ukabhai on the other. The statement submitted on behalf of the employer states in para 2 as to what was the period during which the respondent-workman was employed and had done the work. Of course, this contention is advanced as an alternative defence. It is true that in para 2, it was also mentioned that it was an alternative contention. The written statement on behalf of the employer was verified by Maheshbhai Kansara who was Director-Finance of Naran Lala metal Works Limited. The application dated 6. 7. 1989 was given on behalf of the employer as if it was given on behalf of the company as it is very clear from the application that Maheshbhai Mohanlal Kansara signed as Director-Finance for and on behalf of Naran Lala Metal Works Limited. There is no doubt in the mind of this court that the employer who had employed the workmen was Naran Lala Metal Works limited but on account of mis-description was wrongly mentioned in the cause title which would prima facie lead to an inference that reference is made against mohanbhai Kansara and Maheshbhai Kansara do Naran Lala Metal Works Limited as if in their individual capacity.

( 5 ) ASSUMING for the sake of argument for a moment that the references was against two persons, if Naran Lala Metal Works is excluded, then only because one of the parties on the employer side is found not alive, does not necessarily invite fatality for rejection of the references in case of an industrial dispute of the workman as other party viz. Maheshbhai Kansara was already on record who incidentally happend to be a director-Finance of Naran Lala Metal Works Limited.

( 6 ) IT is true that legal position is very clear with regard to character of a Corporation or a company. The company or corporation as a separate entity and incorporated to a company is a statutory authority and others can maintain against the corporation with its own name. We are dealing