LexDABUR (DR. S. K. BURMAN) PRIVATE LTD. DEOGHAR, BIHAR versus THE WORKMEN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
61 A DABUR (DR. S. K. BURMAN) PRIVATE LTD. DE<JG. . B BAR, BIBAR v. THE WORKMEN July 26, 1967 (J. M. SHELAT, V. BHARGAVA AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.) Industrial Dispute-Order of Reference-Clerical error, if con be corrected. The Government referred an industrial dispute to Labour Court, Patna. and subsequently issued an order by way of corrigen- C dum 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 comp~tent to . cancel or withdraw that reference, so the Labour Court, Ranchi had no jurisdiction. The Labour Court, Rancm rejec- ted the objection. The High Court also rejected this contention. In appeal to this Court : D HELD : The alteration in the order of reference was a mere cor- rection of a clerical error. because, lzy mistake, Patna had been mentioned in place of Ranchi in the first notification and the second notification merely corrected that mistake. Such a clericar 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 fu the Labour Court, Patna. [63F-H] E CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2568 of F 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 Bharpva, J.-Tlie Government of Bihar, by an Order dated G 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:- "(!) Whether the discharge of the following forty work· men was proper? If not, whether they are entitl~ to reinstatement and /.or any other relief? B (2) Whether the above-mentioned w~rkmen are entitled to be made permanent?" Subsequently, the Government issued an Order by way of corri- gendum on the 19th July, 1961, substituting "Ranchi" for "Pata" 62 SUPUE?dE l'OlTf~'l' REPOJ;t'J't; (1968] l S.O.R. in the original order of reference dated 14th June, 1961. The A 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 objection! 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 B and could not make a competent reference of the same industrial dispute lo 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, hul we need only mention those grounds which have been urged before us in this appeal. While the Libour Court was dealing with the reference, adjournments were sought on behalf of the C 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 ad- journment on the ground that their local Manager, Sri Basant Jha, had been lying ill for some time past and it was not possible for D 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 compe- tent and it had jurisdiction to deal with it, even though, by the B 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 ma/a fide inasmuch as the purpose of the discharge was to F avoid the liability of treating these workmen as permanent em- ployees by preventing them from completing 240 days of work in a year. There was the further finding that the workmen were all discharg
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.