The Industrial Tribunal has the power under Section 6(6) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to correct errors arising from accidental slip or omission, including the omission to decide an issue referred by the Government.

( 1 ) GOVERNMENT of U. P. in exercise of power under Section 4-K of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as Act), referred the two questions to the Industrial Tribunal-1 at allahabad, relating to the legality and propriety of termination of services of the two workmen, named therein and about regularisation and confirmation of services of these two workmen. The order of reference as translated into English is quoted below:

(1) Whether termination of services of the two workmen, Mohammad Jamil, son of shahamatullah and Nand Lal, son of Ram Kishan, of Civil Contraction department with effect from 1. 2. 1979, is proper/legal? if not, to what relief the workmen are entitled?

(2) If the aforesaid decision is given in favour of the workmen then whether the employer should have declared these workmen as confirmed/permanent ?

( 2 ) THE Industrial Tribunal in pursuance of aforesaid reference registered the case as adjudication Case No. 168 of 1980 and vide its Award, dated 17. 8. 1981 (Annexure 5 to writ petition) held termination of services of the two concerned workmen to be improper and illegal and directed their reinstatement with effect from 1. 2. 1979 with continuity of service. However, the Industrial Tribunal completely omitted to consider the second question referred to it regarding confirmation of the workmen.

( 3 ) BOTH the workmen as such made an application under Section 6 (6) of the Act to Industrial tribunal for deciding the second question referred to it. This application was rejected by industrial Tribunal vide its order, dated 30. 8. 1983, on the ground that Section 6 (6) does not postulate giving of the whole Award on the issue. Relevant extract of the order of the Tribunal is quoted below:

"the expression omission in the context would suggest that the Tribunal clearly intended to do a thing but missed it by inadvertence. This does not seem to be the position in the present case. Section 6 (6) does not postulate giving of a whole award on an issue. So, if there indeed was an omission it was not an omission of nature whose correction could be deemed postulated by section 6 (6) of the Act".

The workmen has filed this writ petition before this Court for quashing the order, dated 30. 8. 1983 and for direction to the Tribunal to decide the second issue/question referred to it by government.

( 4 ) SECTION 6 (6) of the Act authorises Industrial Tribunal either of its own motion or on application of any party to the dispute to correct any clerical or arithmetical mistake in the award or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission. Sub-section (6) is quoted below:

"a Labour Court, Tribunal or Arbitrator may either of its own motion or on the application of any party to the dispute, correct any clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the Award or errors arising either from any accidental slip or omission, whenever any correction is made as aforesaid, a copy of the order shall be sent to the State Government and the provision of this Act, relating to the publication of an Award mutatis mutandis apply thereto". Industrial Tribunal can correct not only clerical and arithmetical mistake but also errors in the award, arising from any accidental slip or omission. Omission to decide by Industrial Tribunal a question/issue referred to it by the Government is an error which is liable to be corrected by the tribunal. In Tulsipur Sugar Company v. State of U. P. : 1969 (2) LLJ 662 two questions were referred to Labour Court but the Labour Court while giving the Award decided only first question and second question was completely omitted from being decided. After the publication of the Award an application under Section 6 (6) of the Act was moved before the Labour Court for deciding the second question, and the Labour Court accordingly decided the second question and amended its Award on the ground that it had omitted to answer the second question referred to it by the Government. The Supre