http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: DABUR (DR.  S. K. BURMAN) PRIVATE LTD.  DEOGHAR, BIHAR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE WORKMEN

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26/07/1967

BENCH: BHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA BENCH: BHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA SHELAT, J.M. VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A.

CITATION:  1968 AIR   17            1968 SCR  (1)  61

ACT: Industrial  Dispute--Order of Reference--Clerical error,  if can be corrected.

HEADNOTE: The  Government  referred an industrial  dispute  to  Labour Court,  Patna,  and subsequently issued an order by  way  of corrigendum   substituting   "Ranchi"   for   "Patna".    In proceedings  before the Labour Court, Ranchi, objection  was raised  that  once having made the reference to  the  Labour Court, Patna, the Government was not competent to cancel  or withdraw that reference, so the Labour Court, Ranchi had  no jurisdiction.   The  Labour  Court,  Ranchi   rejected   the objection. The High Court also rejected this Contention. In appeal to this Court: HELD:  The alteration in the order of reference was  a  mere correction  of a clerical error. because, by mistake,  Patna had  been  mentioned  in  place  of  Ranchi  in  the   first notification  and the second notification  merely  corrected that mistake. Such a clerical error can always be  corrected and  such  a  correction  does  not  amount  either  to  the withdrawal of the reference from, or cancellation of the re- ference to the Labour Court, Patna. [63F-H]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2568 of 1966. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated March  23,  1966 of the Patna High Court in  Misc.  Judicial Case No. 118 of 1963. H. R. Gokhale and Sukumar Ghose, for the appellant. M.  K. Ramamurthi, Shymala Pappu and Vineet Kumar,  for  the respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bhargava,  J.-The Government  of  Bihar, by an Order dated  14th  June,  1961, referred  an industrial dispute under section 10(1)  of  the Industrial  Disputes  Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) to  the  Labour Court,   Patna,  wherein  the  following  two  issues   were referred:-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

             "(1)  Whether the discharge of  the  following               forty  workmen  was proper?  If  not,  whether               they are entitled to reinstatement and/or  any               other relief?               (2)  Whether the above-mentioned  workmen  are               entitled to be made permanent?" Subsequently,  the  Government  issued an Order  by  way  of corrigendum  on the 19th July, 1961,  substituting  "Ranchi" for "Patna" 62 in  the original order of reference dated 14th  June,  1961. The effect of this corrigendum was that the reference of the dispute,  instead of being made to the Labour Court,  Patna, came  before the Labour Court, Ranchi.  In  the  proceedings before that Court, the principal objections that was  raised was that the Government, having once made a reference to the Labour Court, Patna, was not competent to cancel or withdraw that  reference and could not make a competent reference  of the same industrial dispute to the Labour Court, Ranchi,  so that  the latter Court had no jurisdiction to deal with  the reference.   The  case  before the  Labour  Court  was  also contested on various other grounds, but we need only mention those  grounds  which  have been urged  before  us  in  this appeal.   While  the  Labour  Court  was  dealing  with  the reference,  adjournments  were  sought  on  behalf  of   the appellant,  M/s.   Dabur (Dr.  S. K.  Burman)  Private  Ltd. After decision of some preliminary points by the order dated 18th  August, 1962, the case was fixed for hearing  on  19th November,  1962.  On that date, the management again  prayed for  an adjournment on the ground that their local  Manager, Sri Basant Jha, had been lying ill for some time past and it was not possible for the management to prosecute their  case with diligence.  The Labour Court rejected this  application and, thereupon, proceeded to hear the reference ex parte. The Labour Court held that the reference to it was competent and it had jurisdiction to deal with it, even though, by the original order of reference, the Government had purported to refer the dispute to the Labour Court, Patna.  On the  first issue  referred, the Court recorded the finding that the  40 workmen,  who had been discharged, were not  casual  workers and that their discharge by the employers on the basis  that they  were  casual workers was not proper.  It  was  further held  that  the  discharge was mala  fide  inasmuch  as  the purpose  of  the  discharge was to avoid  the  liability  of treating these workmen as permanent employees by  preventing them from completing 240 days of work in a year.  There  was the  further  finding that the workmen were  all  discharged from service as they had demanded increase in rates of wages and  had  also  claimed that Sundays  should  be  made  paid holidays.   Against  this  award,  the  appellant  filed   a petition  under Article 226 of the Constitution in the  High Court  of  Patna requesting that Court to quash  the  award. That Court upheld the award and dismissed the writ petition. Consequently,  the  appellant has come up to this  Court  by special leave against that judgment of the High Court. Mr. Gokhale, appearing on behalf of the appellant,  emphati- cally  urged that both the Labour Court, Ranchi as  well  as the  Patna  High  Court  were  wrong  in  holding   that,the reference  to the Labour Court, Ranchi, was  competent  even after the reference, 63  had  originally been made to the Labour Court,  Patna.   He relied  on the principle laid down by this Court  that  once the  Government has made a reference to a particular  Labour Court, it is that Labour Court which becomes seized of  that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

industrial  dispute and, thereafter, the Government  has  no jurisdiction either to withdraw that reference or cancel it. In this case, however, as is      clear from the judgment of the High Court, the question that  arose  was  entirely different.  The  High  Court  has clearly  held that this was not a case where the  Government either  withdrew  or cancelled the reference to  the  Labour Court, Patna.  The High Court has held that, from the  facts stated  by the appellant in the writ petition filed in  that Court,  it  appeared  that the alteration in  the  order  of reference  was  a  mere  correction  of  a  clerical  error. because,  by mistake, Patna had been mentioned in  place  of Ranchi  in the first notification.  The second  notification merely  corrected  that mistake.  Mr. Gokhale wanted  us  to hold  that  the High Court was wrong in its  view  that  the Government  had merely made’ correction of a clerical  error and  that we should accept the submission on behalf  of  the appellant that, in fact, the      State  Government bad first intentionally referred  the dispute   to  the  Labour  Court,  Patna,  and  issued   the corrigendum  only  when  the  Government  decided  that  the reference  should  go to the Labour Court,  Ranchi  and  not Labour  Court,  Patna, because Labour Court,  Patna  bad  no jurisdiction  to entertain the reference.  We are unable  to accept this submission made on behalf of the      appellant.   The High Court drew in inference from  the facts  stated  in the writ petition filed by  the  appellant itself that this was a case of mere correction of a clerical error.  This finding recorded by the High Court on the basis of  the facts given in the writ petition is not now open  to challenge in this special appeal, particularly because  even a copy of that writ petition has not been      made a part of the paper-book before us.  We cannot see how  any  objection can be taken to the  competence  of  the State  Government  to make a correction of a  mere  clerical error.  The finding that it was a clerical error means  that the Government in fact intended to make the reference to the Labour Court, Ranchi; but while actually scribing the  order of  reference,  a  mistake was committed by  the  writer  of putting down Patna instead of Ranchi.      Such a clerical error can always be corrected and  such a correction does not amount either to the withdrawal of the reference  from.  or cancellation of the reference  to.  the Labour  Court, Patna.  The High Court was. therefore.  right in rejecting this contention on behalf of the appellant.      On  merits, Mr. Gokhale wanted to urge only two  points before  us.   ’One  was that the Labour  Court  committed  a manifest error of law apparent on the face of the record  in holding that the workmen concerned were not casual  workers. The  judgment of the High Court, however, shows that  before that Court 64 it  was nowhere urged or argued that any such error  of  law apparent on the face of the record had been committed by the Labour  Court.   What was urged before the  High  Court  was that,  even on the ex parte evidence on record,  the  Labour Court  ought to have held that the workmen were mere  casual labourers.   The High Court was right in holding  that  this point urged on behalf of the appellant essentially raised  a question  of fact only and that Court, in  its  jurisdiction under  Article 226 of the Constitution, could not  interfere on  such a question of fact.  Since no submission  was  made before  the High Court that the finding of the Labour  Court that  the workmen are not casual labourers suffers from  any manifest  error of law apparent on the face of  the  record,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

the  appellant is not entitled to raise this point  in  this special appeal before us.  On the finding actually  recorded by the Labour Court and upheld by the High Court, the  order of the Labour Court directing reinstatement of these workmen is  fully  justified, so that the order made by  the  Labour Court,  insofar  as  it  is against  the  interests  of  the appellant,  is correct and must be upheld.  In view of  this position, it is unnecessary to go into the question  whether the  Labour  Court  was or was not right  in  recording  the finding as to mala fides. The only other point urged was that the Labour Court  should not have proceeded ex parte when material was placed  before that Court on behalf of the appellant to show that its local Manager,  Sri  Basant  Jha,  was in  fact  lying  ill.   The question  whether an adjournment should or should  not  have been  granted  on this ground was in the discretion  of  the Labour  Court.   Even the order by which  the  Labour  Court rejected  that application for adjournment is not before  us and,  consequently, it cannot be held that the Labour  Court committed  any such error in rejecting the  application  for adjournment  and  proceeding  ex  parte  as  would   justify interference by this Court. The  appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.  Y.P.  Appeal dismissed. 65