The court emphasized that a mistake in the terms of reference and the award, not caused by the petitioner, should be corrected to reflect the petitioner's correct name and ensure compliance with the award.

1. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that order dated 12.1.2005 by which Assistant Labour Commissioner (Law) Rajasthan, Jaipur has rejected application of the petitioner for getting the award corrected from the Labour Court on the premise that now the award has been published in the gazette, be quashed and set aside. Petitioner also prayed for quashment of order dated 2.3.2005 by which the Executive Engineer, Right Canal Division-II, CAD Chambal, Anta has declined to allow the petitioner to join duties in compliance of the award of Labour Court, be also quashed and set aside. Petitioner has also additionally prayed that necessary correction be ordered to be made in the terms of reference wherein correct name of petitioner working as Mixer Driver has been inadvertently shown as "Rampratap".

2. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that it was Ramprasad S/o Devlal, who was working as Mixer Driver with the respondent and his name has been correctly shown by the appropriate Government in the appointment order and in the failure report submitted by Labour Welfare and Conciliation Officer, Kota and also in the list of terminated workmen. In the order of making reference, due to inadvertence on the part of Government itself his name was shown at Serial No. 31 of the list of workmen enclosed therewith, as "Rampratap" instead of "Ramprasad". Learned counsel submitted that there was no other person namely; Rampratap as Mixer Driver in the whole of unit and it was only Ramprasad, whose name was shown in the list of conciliation proceedings at serial No. 31. According to learned counsel the mistake might have taken place due to the fact that photo-stat copy of the list could have been faint or that the next workman listed below him Basantilal indicated his parentage as Rampratap. Learned counsel submitted that while on the one hand, the respondents did not allow the petitioner to join duties on the other hand, the respondents treated the petitioner absent from the duty. Petitioner also made a request to the appropriate Government for sending the matter to the Labour Court and getting the award corrected as per the failure report wherein his name was correctly indicated as "Ramprasad", but the application of the petitioner was rejected by the Government by order dated 12.1.2005.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that petitioner cannot be reinstated in service because award has been passed by learned Labour Court in terms of reference and with notification making reference, the list enclosed contained name of Rampratap, which found mention in the award. When pointedly asked whether any person by the name of Rampratap ever appeared before the respondents to join, the learned counsel could not say that any person ever approached them. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner should have approached the Labour Court for seeking appropriate correction because the Union, which was representing all the 32 workmen never raised any such objection before the learned Labour Court.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, I find that copy of the failure report, which is on record as Annex. 2, clearly indicates the name of petitioner as "Ramprasad S/o Devlal" Mixer Driver at Serial No. 31 in the list appended with the failure report. However, it was due to mistake on the part of appropriate Government, which while issuing the notification of reference has wrongly mentioned name of petitioner as Rampratap at serial No. 31 and the same mistake obviously occurred in the award. Petitioner cannot be blamed for this mistake because it happened at the hand of appropriate Government and the petitioner also cannot be blamed if the same mistake was repeated because he was not personally prosecuting the matter before the learned Labour Court and it was the Union, which was contesting this matter on behalf of the workmen.