Courts possess inherent authority to rectify clerical or typographical errors in their judgments through the 'speaking to minutes' procedure to ensure the judicial record accurately reflects the court's true intent and determination.

JUDGMENT :

HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.

1. RULE returnable forthwith. Learned counsel Mr. Krishnan Ghavariya, waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent-workman.

2. Present petition is filed by the petitioner - Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter be referred to as “the Act”) challenging the judgment and award dated 01.01.2025 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara (hereinafter be referred to as “the Tribunal”) in Reference (I.T.) No. 14 of 2023 seeking following reliefs :

“(A) This Hon'ble Court may pleased to issue mandamus and/or nature of a a writ be of writ in the mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the impugned Reference Order dated 04.02.2023 at Annexure-J to the petition as also the impugned award dated 01.01.2025 passed by learned Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara in Reference (I.T.) No.14 of 2023 at Annexure-A to the petition and further may be pleased to reject the Reference of the respondent in full;

(B) Pending the admission hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the execution, implementation and operation of the impugned award dated 01.01.2025 passed by learned Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara in Reference (I.T.) No.14 of 2023 at Annexure-A;

(C) Any other and further relief or reliefs to which this Hon'ble Court deemed fit, in the interest of justice; may kindly be granted;”

3. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that, the respondent was working as Surveyor in the Ankleshwar Rural Division Office of the petitioner. That, for the serious act of misconduct committed by the respondent, which amounts dishonesty, misappropriation to fraud, and cheating with the petitioner, charge sheet was issued against him on 24.05.2012. That, the respondent attained the age of superannuation on 27.06.2014 and accordingly, as per Service Regulation 72, the respondent was relieved from service. That, the inquiry was conducted after giving full opportunity to the respondent and the inquiry officer submitted his findings. That, second show-cause notice was issued to the respondent and the inquiry report was supplied to the respondent. That, penalty order was issued, whereby the respondent was inflicted penalty of forfeiture of leave encashment and gratuity and therefore, the respondent preferred departmental appeal before the competent authority challenging the said penalty order. After hearing the respondent, the appeal of the respondent was dismissed and therefore, the respondent approached this Court by way of filing Special Application No.6835 of 2019 against the order of dismissal of the appeal, whereby, this Court dismissed the petition preferred by the respondent vide order dated 03.02.2022. That thereafter, the respondent approached Commissioner of Labour by written application. That, the conciliation officer submitted his failure report and accordingly, the Reference was made to the learned Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara City at Bharuch, whereby, the learned Tribunal without passing Part I award whereby validity of the inquiry was required to be decided, straightway, passed the impugned award dated 01.01.2025, whereby the inquiry against the respondent has been held to be illegal and the petitioner is thus directed to pay leave encashment and gratuity with 68 interest from 01.07.2014.

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned award dated 01.01.2025 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara in Reference (I.T.) No. 14 of 2023, the petitioner has preferred this petition.

5. Heard Mr. Dipak R. Dave, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Company and Mr. Krishnan Ghavariya, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-workman.

6. Learned counsel Mr. Dave has submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by t