The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appropriate Government has the power to amend or modify a reference order to clarify, modify, or add to the reference without cancelling the original order, as long as it does not contradict the original order and does not cause prejudice to the parties involved.

J.B. Koshy, J.

The main question to be decided in this case is whether appropriate Government, after passing an order of reference, could subsequently amend or modify the same. On the facts of this petition, 4th respondent was employed in the petitioner-factory. For misconducts proved in an enquiry, 4th respondent was dismissed by order dated 18.7.1989. The matter was taken up by the Union. The appropriate Government referred the matter to the Industrial Tribunal, Quilon. The issue referred for adjudication was:

"Denial of employment to Smt. Sarasamma Amma, Shelling No. 58 of Mukhathala Cashew Factory with effect from 26.11.1988."

During the proceedings of the case before the Industrial Tribunal, Quilon, petitioner-management raised jurisdictional objection that since 4th respondent was dismissed from service, there is no denial of employment and issue referred for adjudication is incompetent. Consequently, 4th respondent applied for amendment of reference as it was contended by the management 'denial of employment' will not cover 'dismissal' from service. Ext. P7 was therefore, issued modifying the reference changing the words 'denial of employment' to 'dismissal'. Fourth respondent was impleaded as a party in the modified reference. Under S.2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, workman himself can raise an industrial dispute if the employer discharges„ dismisses or retrenches or otherwise terminates the services of the workman. Impleadment of the workman as a party to the dispute as such is not questioned in the Original Petition.

2. Petitioner management questions Ext. P7 modified reference order on the ground that Ext. P3 reference order and Ext. P7 order modifying the reference are entirely different matter. It is contended that denial of employment and dismissal from service are entirely different and Ext. P7 modifies Ext. P3 order of reference as petitioner was able to convince the Tribunal that there is no denial of employment but only dismissal from service. It is also contended by the petitioner that if the first reference is not correct perhaps Government may issue fresh independent reference order but the existing reference order cannot be modified as an order like Ext. P7 by way of amendment of the original reference order actually nullifies the original reference order Ext. P3.

3. It is submitted by the petitioner that modification of the reference order is not possible as held by this court in F.A.C.T. Employees' Association v. F.A.C.T. (1976 KLT 474) In that case, it was held that once a reference order is passed there should be an award of the Tribunal. In the above case, while confirming the exparte award of the Tribunal, it was observed that once a reference is made an award should he passed. There was no finding in the above judgment that once a reference is issued it cannot be modified or amended at all by the Government.

4. The contention of the petitioner that by changing the words 'denial of employment' in Ext. P3 to 'dismissal' in Ext. P7, Ext. P3 reference order itself is nullified, cannot be accepted. It is admitted by the petitioner management that fourth respondent was dismissed after conducting an enquiry. Even under Ext. P3 reference order correctness of the dismissal order could have been canvassed without modification by Ext. P7 as the term 'denial of employment' could cover 'dismissal from service' also. In Kollam Jilla Hotel & Shop Workers Union v. Industrial Tribunal (1997 (2) KLT 535) it was observed by this Court as follows:

"Denial of employment of the workers by Management can be by different methods. It can be by dismissal, discharge, superannuation, illegally disallowing the employee to attend the company, by removal of name from the roll etc. Dismissal of an employee is one method of denial of employment. If itis found that worker is dismissed what is to be onside red is whether denial of employment by way of dismissal is correct or not. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the emplo