Dismissed

Dabur (Dr. S. K. Burman) Private Ltd. Deoghar, Bihar v. the Workmen

Supreme Court26 Jul 19671967 INSC 161 · [1968] 1 S.C.R. 611967 INSC 161

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A State Government's corrigendum substituting 'Ranchi' for 'Patna' in an order of reference under section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was a mere correction of a clerical error, not a withdrawal or cancellation of the reference; such clerical errors can always be corrected. The Court also upheld the Labour Court's finding that 40 discharged workmen were not casual workers and their discharge was mala fide, refused to entertain a new point about error of law not urged before the High Court under Article 226, and found no fault in proceeding ex parte after rejecting an adjournment request. Appeal dismissed with costs.

What the court decided

AI extract

Dabur (Dr. S. K. Burman) Private Ltd… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Supreme Court (1968)

¶1

¶2

A DABUR (DR. S. K. BURMAN) PRIVATE LTD. DE<JG. BAR, BIBAR

THE WORKMEN

. B

July 26, 1967

(J. M. SHELAT, V. BHARGAVA AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.)

¶8

Industrial Dispute-Order of Reference-Clerical error, if con be corrected.

¶9

The Government referred an industrial dispute to Labour Court, Patna. and subsequently issued an order by way of corrigenC 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 rejected the objection. The High Court also rejected this contention. In appeal to this Court :

¶10

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 reference fu the Labour Court, Patna. [63F-H]

¶11

E CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2568 of 1966.

¶12

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.

¶13

H. R. Gokhale and Sukumar Ghose, for the appellant. F M. K. Ramamurthi, Shymala Pappu and Vineet Kumar, for the respondents.

¶14

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

¶15

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?

¶16

B (2) Whether the above-mentioned w~rkmen are entitled to be made permanent?"

¶17

Subsequently, the Government issued an Order by way of corrigendum on the 19th July, 1961, substituting "Ranchi" for "Pata"

¶18

¶19

(1968] l S.O.R.

¶20

SUPUE?dE l'OlTf~'l' REPOJ;t'J't;

¶21

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 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 D the management to prosecute their case with diligence. The Labour Court rejected this application and, thereupon, proceeded to hear the reference ex parte.

¶22

The Labour Court held that the reference to it was competent 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 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 G 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 lias come up to this Court by special leave against that judgment of the High Court.

¶23

Mr. Gokhalc. aprearing on behalf of tile appellant, emphati- B cally urged that both the Labour Court, Ranchi as well as the P1itm1 High Court w.:re wrong in holding that the reference lo the Labour Court, Ranchi, was competent even after the reference

¶24

DABUR L1'D. t'. WORKKEN (Bliargava, J.)

¶25

¶26

A 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 thai Labour Court which becomes seized of that industrial dispute and, thereafter, the Government has no jurisdiction either to withdraw that reference or cancel it. In this case, however, as is

¶27

B 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

¶28

0^{inthe order of referencewasamerecorrection 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 niere!y made correction of a clerical error and th~t we should

¶29

D accept the submission on behalf of the appellant that, in fact; the State .Government had 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 had no jurisdiction to entertain the reference. We are unable to accept this submission made on behalf. of the

¶30

B appellant. The High Court drew an 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

¶31

r 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.

¶32

G 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.

¶33

B: 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 iudg· ment of the High Court, however, shows that before that Court

¶34

[1968] 1 8.0.L

¶35

SUl'Rt:ME COURT RBPORTS

¶36

it was nowhere urged or argued that any such error of law appa· .& rent 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 urLed on behalf of the appellant essentially raised a question'-'Oflact oruy and that B Court, in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, could not interfere on such ;t 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 faee of the record, the appellant is not entitled to raise this point in this special 0 appeal before us. On the findiQg 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 jus~ed. 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 re- D cording the finding as to ma/a {ides.

¶37

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 lyin.g ill. The question 1 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 11pplication for adjournment and proceeding ex parte as would justify interference by this Court. 'I'

¶38

'I'

¶39

The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs;

¶40

Y.P.

¶41

Appeal dismissed.

Dabur (Dr. S. K. Burman) Private Ltd. Deoghar, Bihar v. the Workmen

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Dabur (Dr. S. K. Burman) Private Ltd. Deoghar, Bihar v. the Workmen

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thakur Jugal Kishore Sinha versus Sitamarhi Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd. & Anr.

State of Punjab & Ors. versus M/S. Tara Chand Lajpat Rai

Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh versus Jaswant Singh Charan Singh

Treogi Nath versus the Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd.

Chief Mining Engineer East India Coal Co. Ltd. versus Rameswar and Ors.

National Engineering Industries Ltd. versus Its Workmen