MADAN PAL SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] 1 S.C.R. 69 · Decided: 06-01-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD, D.P. WADHWA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

MADAN PAL ~INGH 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
JANUARY 6, 2000 
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] 
Labour Laws : 
A 
B 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Sections JO, 11, 11-A and 17-Appellant 
employed as a work agent on day to day basis-Worked for about four C 
years-Not given employment thereafte~Approached Conciliation Officer 
and by mistake wrote his name as Madan Lal instead of Madan Pal-Applied 
for co"ection but not co"ected-Reference made to Labour Court-During 
the course of adjudication no doubt raised about the identity of the appel-
lanr-N o preliminary objection taken by the management on the D 
issue-Evidence led-Objection as to the name raised at the en~Award 
given by the Court that no relation between Madan Lal and management 
therefore, reference was ba~Appellant got reference amended- Labour 
Court refused to amend the award-Challenge to the order of Labour Court 
dismissed by the High Court-On appeal, Held : Initially the fault laid on 
E 
part of the appellant as he gave wrong name-However, ultimately if he is 
found to be entitled to the relief, then the Court can suitably mould the 
relieHit case for equitable considerations-Labour Court itself could have 
sought correction of the reference-Labour Court could have waited till the 
amendment of the award--Labour Court could have held proceedings from 
the stage taking the reference to be valid from the date of its amendment. 
The apptllalllt was employed as a work agent by New Okhla In· 
dustrial Development Authority on a day to day basis. The appellant 
worked from July 1982 to August, 1986, after which he was not given any 
employment. Olll this he approached the Conciliation Officer, Gllaziabad. 
Howl!ver, by mista!re in the applicatiolll, he mellltioned his name as Madan 
Lal instead of Madan Pal Singh. In March, 1987 itself he applied for 
F 
G 
correction of hls name which was not corrected and the dispute VlllS 
referred to the Labour Court: The mistake in the name continued. The 
appellant termed his termination as unjustified and illegal. He demanded 
regularisatiolll of his services with fuli back wages. The management al· H 
69 
70 
Sl:PRFMF. COURT K.EPORTS 
[2000) l S.C.R. 
A leged that he was a casual labourer on daily wages from time to time and 
therefore, his services were liable to be terminated, without notice, at any 
time. In evidence, a Project Engineer stated that neither anybody by the 
name of Madan Lal was ever employed nor the services of any Madan Lal 
were terminated on the relevant date. In his cross- examination he, how-
B ever, admitted that he knew Madan Pal who was present in the Court and 
denied that Madan Pal's services were illegally terminated. On corning to 
know that hi!. name was written as Madan Pal in the reference, the 
appellant wrote to the Joint Secretary to the Government of U.P. in 1991 
for correction of the mistake. The appellant sought adjournment on the 
ground of getting the reference amended which was objeckd to by the 
C management. The Labour Court held that ins pite of the time given to the 
appellant, nothing was done to amend the award; therefore, as there was 
no relation between Madan Lal and management there was no industrial 
dispute existing till then. That being so there was no question of terminat-
ing the services of Madan Lal and due to all these reasons the reference 
D was bad. The award was published on March 16, 1992. On March 24th the 
State Government amended the reference o'\ which the appellant again 
approached the Labour Court. This was objected by the management on 
the ground that no amendment could be made after giving of the Award. 
The Labour Court, therefore, rejected the application of the appellant. The 
appellant's challenge to the order of the Labour Court before the High 
E Court in a writ petition was dismissed. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. During the course of adjudication proceedings no one 
p was in doubt about the identity of the workman that it was '1adan Pal 
Singh. The management did not raise any preliminary objection about the 
validity of the reference on the ground that no wor!unan by name Madan 
Lal was in its employment and so the reference was bad. Evidence had been 
led before the Labour Court and it is only at the fag end of the proceedings 
that it was stated by the management that there was no Madan Lal in its 
G employment. No doubt,initially the fault lay on the workman himself when 
he gave

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.