IMPORTANT POINT
Amendments to industrial dispute references are valid if the original reference remains unchanged, ensuring comprehensive adjudication.

JUDGMENT :

Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.07.2022 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Haldwani whereby the application of the petitioner being Application No.31(d) was rejected. The petitioner by making Application No.31(d) sought the quashing of the reference dated 14.07.2020 issued by the State Government.

3. The facts of the case, which need a brief mention are as such:-

4. The petitioner is a Private Limited Company under the name and style of “Satyam Auto Components Private Limited” situated at SIDCUL, Haridwar. From the perusal of the record, it appears that the workmen of the company numbering 238 entered into a dispute with the petitioner’s company and allegedly they had not worked in the company. The respective allegations are that the company says that the respondent/workmen did not turn up and worked in the company while the case of the workmen is that the workmen were stopped forcefully from entering into the premises of the company.

5. The dispute between the parties was reached to the State Government and the State Government by a reference dated 15.11.2017 referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Haldwani for adjudication, which was registered as Adjudication Case No.23 of 2017 M/s Satyam Auto Components Pvt. Ltd. vs. Shravan Kumar and 238 others. It transpires from the record that before adjudication would proceed further by filing the respective pleadings in the case, an application dated 22.11.2018 was moved on behalf of the respondent/workmen before the Additional Labour Commissioner, Haridwar making a request for amending the reference. The said application was remained pending with the Additional Labour Commissioner constraining the respondents/workmen to move this Court by filing the Writ Petition (M/S) No.924 of 2019, Raghunath Prasad Gupta vs. State of Uttarakhand and this Court vide order dated 20.02.2020 after hearing both the parties and without expressing any opinion regarding the merits of the case and maintainability of the said application dated 22.11.2018, directed the competent authority i.e. the Additional Labour Commissioner to take decision on the petitioner’s application and to pass a speaking order.

6. The Assistant Labour Commissioner, after the order dated 20.02.2020 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide its order dated 03.07.2020 referred the amended issue between the parties to the Labour Commissioner and the proforma of the amended reference was sent to the Assistant Labour Commissioner vide Annexure No.10 to the writ petition.

7. The Labour Commissioner acted upon the proforma reference prepared and sent by the Assistant Labour Commissioner by reason of its order dated 14.07.2020 has amended the reference by adding a new reference at serial No.1 without touching the reference which was earlier sent for adjudication.

8. The petitioner after insertion of Reference No.1 in the earlier reference moved the Application No.31(d) on 28.01.2021 to the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Uttarakhand Haldwani to hold amendment/modification in the original reference as illegal per-se. The said application was rejected by the learned Presiding Officer on 25.07.2021 by reason of the order impugned in the present writ petition.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the order dated 25.07.2022 whereby the Application No.31(d) of the petitioner was rejected, has submitted that the said order was bad in law for being non speaking and against the order dated 20.02.2020 passed in the earlier writ petition. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that amendment in the original reference by inserting Reference no.1 would amount to supersession of the earlier reference dated 15.11.2017 and, therefore, the same is bad in law. Lastly, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the p