1. - By this writ petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 07.12.2011 whereby the Labour Court dismissed the application moved by the petitioner for correction of his father's name.

2. It is stated that after passing the award by the Labour Court, a writ petition as filed. The said writ petition was dismissed, however, in the appeal, a liberty was given to the petitioner to seek amendment in father's name by moving an application before the Labour Court. The petitioner accordingly moved an application for correction in his father's name, however, the same has been declined. It is stated that petitioner's father's name was wrongly mentioned, thus necessary correction in that regard was asked but ignoring the direction of Hon'ble Division Bench, the same has been denied. Accordingly, a prayer is made to set aside the impugned order of the Labour Court.

3. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel and perused the record.

4. The application filed by petitioner was dealt with by the Labour Court after discussing every aspect of the matter. It was found that throughout petitioner's father's name was mentioned as Om Prakash. The petitioner never raised objection that his father's name has been wrongly shown as Om Prakash instead of Madan Lal. This is moreso when the respondents took an objection that no record in the name of petitioner is available. The Labour Court considered the order of learned Single Judge dated 01.05.2006 wherein serious observations were made by the learned Single Judge and for ready reference, the order of learned Single Judge dated 01.05.2006 is quoted hereunder:

"The petitioner, on the fact of it, appears to be misleading and misrepresenting before this court by seeking change of his father's name in the record of the Labour Court.

After having carefully gone through the original record of the Labour Court, though the petitioner could have been punished for misrepresentation and filing a false affidavit before this court, however, in the interest of justice, I refrain to do so. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly as having no merits. Record of the Labour Court be sent back."

5. Perusal of the order quoted above reveals that petitioner could have been punished for misrepresentation in filing a false affidavit before the High Court, however, without passing order to that effect, writ petition was dismissed. Before the Division Bench, an application for correction of petitioner's father's name was made and the same was decided with liberty to petitioner to make an application before the Labour Court. It seems that order dated 01st May, 2006 was not brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Division Bench. In any case, the Labour Court not only considered two orders passed by this Court, i.e., by the learned Single Judge and Division Bench but further taken note of his own jurisdiction. It is a settled law that Labour Court can correct only clerical or typographical mistakes. Since petitioner's father's name was mentioned as Om Prakash throughout, that too, in the reference made by the appropriate Government, the Labour Court had no authority to correct the reference, as jurisdiction in that regard remains with appropriate Government only. Since it was not found to be a clerical or typographical mistake, the Labour Court rightly came to conclusion that correction in the award cannot be made. For the aforesaid purpose, a reference of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (for short "the Act of 1947") would be relevant, thus is quoted hereunder for ready reference:

"17. Publication of reports and awards: (1) Every report of a Board or Court together with any minute of dissent recorded therewith, every arbitration award and every award of a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal shall, within a period of thirty days from the date of its receipt by the appropriate Government, be published in such manner as the appropriate Government thinks fit.

(2) Subject to the provis