The court emphasized the need for adherence to the original reference and the expeditious resolution of labour disputes.

JUDGMENT

A. K. Mishra, J. - Petitioner No.1 is a company having Human Resource Policy Circular No.24 dated 27.4.2009, the said policy was given effect by notification of rules for promotion vide Human Resource Policy Circular dated 16.6.2009. Thereafter, the company invited application on 25.7.2009 for promotion. The opposite party no.3, working as Operative-Cum-Senior Technician, had applied for promotion along with others. The selection process was not taken up. On 13.11.2010, fresh applications were invited with specification that previously applied employees were not required to apply again. Seventy-eight applicants were found eligible to appear written test. The opposite party no.3 participated in the entire process and in the merit list secured Sl. No.62. Finally, forty-four candidates were selected for promotion to executive cadre, w.e.f. 1.5.2010 and opposite party no.3 did not qualify.

2. The grievance of opposite party no.3 was taken up in a conciliation by the Assistant Labour Commissioner and upon failure of conciliation, the Government made reference under section 10(1)(c) on 9.12.2014 as follows:-

"Whether the action of the management of Neelachal Ispat Nigam Ltd., Kalinga Nagar, Jajpur in not considering the case of Sri Narahari Mohanty. Operative-Cum-Senior Technician for promotion to the post of Junior Officer (Executive) while giving promotion to 44 persons to that post is legal and/or justified? If not, what relief if Sri Mohanty entitled to?".

2-A. The said reference was taken up by the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar registering I.D. Case No.31 of 2014.

The Court settled the issue on 21.9.2015 and directed the workman opposite party no.3 to adduce evidence.

2-B. The Government issued a corrigendum on 28.10.2016 as follows:-

"The term of reference specified in the schedule issued vide this Department Order No.10072 dtd. 9.12.2014 may be read as follows:

Whether the action of the management of Neelachal Ispat Nigam Ltd. , Kalinganagar, Jajpur in not adhering to the policy Circular No.24 dtd. 27.04.2009 and not considering the case of Sri Narahari Mohanty, Operative-Cum-Senior Technician for promotion to the post of Junior Officer (Executive) while giving promotion to 44 persons to that post is legal and/or justified? If not, what relief is Sri Mohanty entitled to?."

The learned Labour Court on 26.11.2016 resettled the issue in view of the receipt of corrigendum dated 28.9.2016.

3. The prayer of the petitioners in this writ petition is to quash not only the corrigendum issued by the Government on 28.9.2016 but also the order of the Labour Court dtd.26.11.2016 in I.D. Case No.31 of 2014.

3-A. The workman - opposite party no.3 filed counter affidavit, stating that Government has no mala fide intention to bring such corrigendum and the policy circular for promotion was revised without offering opportunity to the Non-Executive employees. The subsequent corrigendum is no way illegal being not meant to cancel, supersede or to withdraw any earlier term of reference.

4. Learned Senior counsel Mr. A. Mohanty relying upon a decision reported in State of Bihar v. D.N. Ganguly and others, 1958 AIR(SC) 1018 assiduously advanced argument that the impugned corrigendum dated 28.9.2016 is meant to enhance the scope of adjudication with regard to promotion of 44 persons with reference to the policy circular dated 27.4.2009 which was not made in the initial reference dated 9.12.2014 and such corrigendum amounts to withdrawal of the first reference which was confined to adjudicate the matter of not considering the promotion of opposite party no.3 alone. Mr. Mohaty also submits that while making corrigendum, the management was not heard and after two years of the original reference, when the proceeding had already progressed substantially to the stage of evidence, issuance of a corrigendum was nothing but mala fide and required to be quashed. It is further submitted that the learned Labour Court order to resettle the issue being consequ