Government has no power.

RAMACHANDRA IYER, C.J. :- This is an appeal against the judgment of Rajagopala Ayyangar J. in W. P. No. 320 of 1958. Irusappan and Manickam, who had been in the service of the first respondent, were retrenched by the latter. The concerned workers raised a dispute which was duly sponsored by the appellant-Union. On 30-10-1957, the Government of Madras made a reference to the Labour court, Coimbatore, Under S. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act the following question; "What retrenchment compensation, if any, are the workers, Irusappan and Manickam, entitled to?" It will be apparent from the form of the question that it accepts that there was a valid retrenchment, but that the dispute to be adjudicated related only to the quantum of compensation. The reference was duly received by the Labour court, which called upon the management and the Union to file their respective statements. The Union was not satisfied with the terms of the reference. It wanted to challenge the validity of the retrenchment by having an amendment of the question already referred to the Labour court. Though its attempts in that direction met with no response initially from the Government, the latter finally agreed to modify the same, and, by its Memorandum dated 12-12-1957, the following amendment to the original notification was directed :

"1. Whether the retrenchment of cleaners, Irusappan and Manickam, is justified and to what relief they are entitled?

2. To compute the relief in terms of money, if it can be so computed?

From the questions stated above, it will be seen that the revised reference, which was introduced by way of amendment to the original one, replaces the old, the effect of it being to withdraw the earlier one from the cognisance of the Labour court. The first of the two questions puts in issue the very validity of the retrenchment which was accepted by the earlier reference. The second question is only ancillary to the first, viz., whether, if the answer to the first is to be in favour of the workers, the relief could be computed in terms of money. There is nothing novel about the form of the second question, which is intended only to give jurisdiction to the reinstatement to the workers in case it was found that the retrenchment was invalid. It will be noticed that the original reference, which was concerned only with the computation of retrenchment compensation, proceeded on the foot of a valid retrenchment. That must be held to have been entirely superseded by an inconsistent case in the amendment which puts in Issue the validity of the retrenchment. When the amended reference came up before the Labour Court, objection was taken on behalf of the management that it was incompetent for the Government to supersede its original reference. But the Labour Court overruled the objection and passed an award, directing the reinstatement of the workers. Thereupon, the Management applied to this court under Art. 226 of the Constitution to quash that order. Rajagopala Aiyangar, J. who heard the application, accepted the contention of the management as to the incompetency of the second reference, and, holding that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain and proceed upon the reference dated 12-12-1957, set aside the award.

2. In this appeal against the judgment of Rajagopala Aiyangar, J. learned counsel for the Union contended that it was certainly within the competence of the Government, acting as it did under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, to correct any mistaken reference made by it, and that, in any event, it had the power to make a supplemental reference, adding certain questions for adjudication in addition to the pre-existing one. According to learned counsel, the second question in the later reference would be wide enough to include a claim for retrenchment compensation, if the answer to the first question happened to be against the workers. In other words, the contention was that the second reference merely added an alter