Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the employer. Mata Prasad, workman respondent No. 3 raised the industrial dispute that his services had illegally been terminated by the petitioner employer. Joint Secretary on behalf of the State Government made reference to the labour Court under Section 4-K of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act on 6.8.1988 to the effect that as to whether the action of the employer terminating the services of its employee Mata Prasad w.e.f. 26.2.1988 was valid and appropriate or not? The matter was registered as Adjudication Case No. 249 of 1988 on the file of Presiding Officer, Labour Court U.P., Varanasi. Written statements and rejoinder statements were filed by both the parties before the labour Court. It was stated by the employer in the written statement and rejoinder statement, copy of which are Annexures-5 & 6 to the writ petition that services of respondent No. 3 were terminated on 5.3.1988. Thereafter, respondent No. 3 sought correction of the reference order. Accordingly, State Government through order dated 4.6.1989 changed the date of termination order from 26.2.1998 to 5.3.1988 in the original reference order. The said correction order dated 4.6.1989 has been challenged through this writ petition. The basic reference order dated 6.8.1988 has also been challenged. A writ of prohibition has also been sought for quashing the proceedings in the adjudication case.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that respondent No. 3 himself mentioned in his written statement that services had been terminated on 26.2.1988, hence date of termination could not be changed to 5.3.1988. It has further been argued that terms of the reference could not be changed without hearing the petitioner.

4. Supreme Court in Madan Pal Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 2000 SC 537, has held that even name of the workman can be corrected in the reference order. Accordingly there was nothing wrong in changing/correcting the date of termination of service in the reference order. In the absence of correction of date of termination, which was given by the employer. Petitioner itself in its written statement, objection could be raised by the employer petitioner that as services of respondent No. 3 were terminated on different date, then the date mentioned in the reference order, hence labour Court could not go beyond the reference.

5. Accordingly, there is no merit in the writ petition, hence it is dismissed.

————