A tribunal lacks the legal authority to amend a government-issued reference and cannot decline to adjudicate an industrial dispute based on trivial, non-existent discrepancies between the reference and the pleadings when the substantive issue of termination is clear.

ORDER :

ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, J.

1. Aggrieved from award dated 07.10.2025 in LCR Case No.90/2010, (CIS No. 448/2014), passed by Labour Court, Kota, the instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner-workman with following prayer:-

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the orders dated 16.07.2025 and 07.08.2025 by which petitioner was not allowed to lead evidence and submit documents may kindly be declared illegal, unjustified and same may be quashed and set aside and petitioner may kindly be allowed to lead evidence and submit documents before the question of fairness of inquiry is decided and also award dated 07.10.2025 also may kindly be declared illegal and unjustified and without merits and same may be quashed and set aside and respondents be directed to reinstate the workman petitioner with all consequential benefits.

Any other order which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner"

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner while referring judgment in case of Kailash Chandra Sharma Vs. Project Officer Jaipur Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited, Jaipur and Ors. : DB Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1569/2014, decided on 10.08.2015, has submitted that after dispute between the parties, the matter was referred for conciliation and failing in conciliation has resulted into reference. He further submitted that as per reference, the termination order was passed on 03.04.2007, but in the evidence, and also in the statement of claim, the workman has stated that he worked till 03.04.2007 and the Labour Court opined that there is a difference between the reference and the statement of claim, thus the Labour Court cannot adjudicate that dispute. He submitted that even if no date is mentioned in reference, even then the Labour Court can decide the dispute and in such situation the Labour Court be directed to decide the reference.

3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, but he submitted that as per reference, the termination order was passed on 03.04.2007 and dispute was only with regard to termination order dated 03.04.2007. He also submitted that the Labour Court has also considered departmental inquiry and after considering the material on record has passed the order.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. Also considered the judgment as referred by learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a Driver by the respondents on 01.12.1996 and he worked till 03.04.2007. The services of the petitioner was terminated on 03.04.2007. The petitioner has raised a dispute and after conciliation, same was referred to the Labour Court. The petitioner has filed a statement of claim with the averment that the petitioner has worked till 03.04.2007 and his services were terminated vide order No.2582 dated 03.04.2007. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 03.04.2007. The respondents in their reply before the Labour Court has admitted termination of service on 03.04.2007, but after due inquiry.

6. On 16.07.2025, the petitioner-workman has filed an application which was dismissed and matter was fixed for arguments on fairness of DE. Again, the workman has filed an application which was again dismissed on 07.08.2025 and the matter was fixed for arguments on fairness of DE.

7. During process