State Government on 30 August, 1969, the dispute relating to the workmen employed in the printing work carried on in the specified printing presses on contract basis was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal. However, it appears that before the Industrial Tribunal the question was raised as to whether the reference included the workmen who were employed in the printing department only of the aforesaid printing presses or also the workmen employed in the composition department of such printing presses as well. While the employees in the statement of their case asserted that the case of workers employed on contract basis in the printing presses, both in the printing department as well as the composition department was referred, the employers on the other hand, contended that only the case of the workers employed to the printing department of the concerned printing presses was referred. The State Government, in order to clarify the position issued the corrigendum notification, dated 16 March, 1970, making it dear thereby that the word “printing” referred to in the original order of reference included the work of composition and printing, etc., carried on in the concerned printing presses. I am unable to hold, in these circumstances, that the subsequent notification, dated 16 March, 1970, which was merely of a clarificatory nature and had only supplemented or amplified the matter, was passed without jurisdiction. It is not disputed that the workmen employed in the composition department were employees of the same establishments, whose disputes were already referred by the earlier order of reference, dated 30 August, 1969, for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal and if under the provisions of Sub-sec. (5) of S. 10 of the Act, similar cases of different establishments could be referred, there is no reason to hold that similar cases of workmen employed in other departments of the same establishments could
