Holding

A reference initially defective in the workman's name can be amended, after which the Labour Court acquires jurisdiction and the award based on the defective reference is set aside.

Summary

Madan Pal Singh, a daily‑wage work agent employed by the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) from July 1982 to August 1986, filed a dispute after his services were terminated. In his conciliation application he mistakenly wrote his name as Madan Lal, and the State of U.P. issued a reference to the Labour Court using that wrong name. The Labour Court held that no industrial dispute existed because no employee named Madan Lal was on the rolls and dismissed the claim. After the State Government amended the reference in March 1992 to correct the name to Madan Pal Singh, the Labour Court refused to act, and the High Court dismissed the appellant’s writ petition. The Supreme Court held that the initial mistake did not deprive the Labour Court of jurisdiction once the reference was amended, that equity warranted a re‑hearing, and set aside the award, remanding the matter to the Labour Court for proper adjudication. The appeal was allowed with costs awarded against the State Government.

Issues considered

Whether a labour dispute reference containing an incorrect name of the workman is invalid and deprives the Labour Court of jurisdiction.
Whether an amendment of the reference after the award can confer jurisdiction on the Labour Court.
Whether the appellant’s mistake and delay bar him from obtaining relief.
Whether equitable considerations can override procedural defects in an industrial dispute.

Legislation cited

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947s. 11, s. 11-A, s. 17, s. 2

Subjects

industrial disputelabour court jurisdictionreference amendmentprocedural defectequitydaily wage workerterminationback wagesNOIDA

Judgment

MADAN PAL ~INGH A
v.
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

JANUARY 6, 2000
B
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.]

Labour Laws :

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-No 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
part of the appellant as he gave wrong name-However, ultimately if he is E
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. F
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 G
Lal instead of Madan Pal Singh. In March, 1987 itself he applied for
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 name and then did not pursue for correction of the name. There
may have been causes for delay but it cannot be said that the appellant is
solely to be blamed for all this. Tirelessly and single handed he has been
fighting his case against the might of the State l:ndertaking. If he was in
H fault to any extent in the delay of disposal of his case all these years and
M. P. SINGH v. 'ffA'IFqDP. WAlJHWA,J.; 71

if ultimately be is found to be entitled to relief the court can certainly A
mould the relief suitably. Equitable considerations can certainly be taken
into account in such a case. [75-E-G)

1.2. When it came to its notice that the name of the workman was not
correctly mentioned in the reference though there was no doubt about his
identity, the Labour Court itself could have sought correction of the refer- B
ence from the State Government. When the appellant approached the State
Government for correcting the reference, Labour Court certainly could
have waited till the State Government amended the reference or othenvbe.
If the Labour Court did not possess jurisdiction inasmuch as there was no
industrial dispute because there WdS no workman in respect of whom C
>-· industrial dispute was sought to be raised, the reference was itself non est
\
and the award a nullity. When the reference had been amended jurisdiction
stood conferred on the Labour Court and it could have held proceedings
from the stage taking the reference to be valid from the date of its amend-
ment. With the consent of the parties it could have relied upon the evidence
which it had recorded before the reference was amended. Whatever be the D
situation this Court cannot permit injustice to perpetuate. [76-A·C]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 40 of
2000.

From the Judgm::nt and Order dated 7.10.98 of the Allahabad High E
Court in C.M.W.P. No. 549 of 1994.

R.G. Srivastava and Balraj Dewan for the Appellant.

P.K. Yadav (for Ravindra Kumar), S.N. Bhat and N.P.S. Pawar for
the Respondents.
F

The Judgment of the Court was ddivered by

D.P. WADHWA, J. Leave granted.

Appellant Madan Pal Singh is aggrieved by judgment dated October G ·
7, 1998 of the Allahabad High Court dismissing his writ petition filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution. In the writ petition he had challenged the
Awdfd dated January 31, 1992 of the Labour Court, Ghaziabad holding
that there is no industrial dispute between him and the New Okhla In-
dustrial Development Authority (NOIDA) Ghaziabad. H
72 SUPREME COURT REP.ORTS [2000] 1 S.C.R.

A By order dat..:d September 16, 1988 State of U.P. referred the fol-
lowing question for adjudication by the Labour Court:-

''Whether the termination dated July 7, 1986 by the manage-
ment employers of the workman Sri Madan Lal work agent is
justified and kgal'I If not, to what relief the workman is entitled.''
B
Labour Court, it appears, after recording all the evidence came to
the conclusion that the management, i.t:,, NOIDA nevt:r employ.:d Madan
Lal; nor his service' were terminated; and that tht:n: was thus no question
of terminating the 'ervices of Madan Lal. lt, therefore, held that Madan
C Lal was not entitlt::d to any relief in the case. This mistake happened
because in the refer~ncc order the name of the appellant Madan Pal Singh
was mentioned as Madan Lal. The employer said that it, had no employee
by the name Madan Lal working with it whose services could be alleged to
have been terminakd. Based on thb plea th1.: Labour Court gaw the Award
and denied any reli..:f to the appellant Madan Pal Singh.
D
Facts which appear from the impugm;d judgment of the High Courts
may be stated briefly.

Madan Pal Singh was employed as work agent by NOIDA on a
E day-to-day basis and was being paid Rs. 16 per day as wages. He worked
during the period from July 1, 1982 to August 7, 1986. After August 7, 1986
Madan Pal Singh was not given any employment. He approached the
Conciliation Officer, Ghaziabad. In his application before the Conciliation
Officer he committed mistake and mentioned his name as Madan Lal
instead of Madan Pal Singh. He applied to the Conciliation Officer on
F March 9, 1987 to correct his name. The mistake was, however not rectified
and by order dated September 16, 1986 State of UP referred the dispute
for adjudication to the Labour Court. The mistake in the name continued
and, as as noted above, in the reference order name of the workman was
mentioned as Madan Lal and not Madan Pal Singh. Parties filed their
G written statements before the Labour Court and led evidence.
If we now refer to the Award dated January 31, 1992 it will be seen
that appfication before the Conciliation Officer was filed by the appellant
on May 20, 1986. The appellant had demanded for regulation of his
services. His services were terminated on July 8, 1986. He demanded from
H his employer, the NOIDA, on October 3, 1986 that he be taken back in
M. P. SINGH v. STATE )J.P. WADHWA,J.J 73
service and paid full back wages. He termed his termination as unjustified A
and illegal. Since there was no response from the employers the appellant
raised the industrial dispute. It was contended by the management that it
was an Authority run by the State U.P. and had its own rules and regula-
tions. According to management U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was
not applicable to them and that the workman was governed by the
provisions of the Public Service Tribunal Act, 1976. It was, therefore,
B
submitted by the management that the order of reference of the State of
t.:P was liable to be rejected as the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to
adjudicate on the order of reference. On facts the management alleged that
Madan Pal Singh had been a casual labourer on daily wages on temporary
basis from time to time and on the expiry of the limited period his services c
used to be terminated. It was also submitted that the appellant was never
employed on any permanent post nor was he made permanent and since
he was working as casual labourer, as and when required, his services were
liable to be: terminated at any time without giving any notice or reason. It
was also submitted that appellant did not work continuously and that he D
worked with break from time to time it was further submitkd that services
of the appellant were not satisfactory and his services could not be con-
tinUt:d. There was no violation of any service rules in terminating the
services of the appellant. Lastly, it was submitted that the appellant was
gainfully employed and that evidencc would be adduced for that purpose.
In support of his case Madan Pal Singh examined himself, Evidence was E
led on bchalf of thc management. In his statement Pratap Kumar, Pariyojna
Abhiyanta on behalf of tht: managemt:nt said that no one by th.: name
Madan Lal was ever employed and services of no Madan Lal were ter-
minated on July 8, 1986. In cross-exdillinatiun, however, he admitted that
ht: knew Madan Lal and Madan Pal who was present in the Court. He F
denied that :Vladan Pal's services had been illt:gally tt;rminatt:d.

When the appellant came to know that his name was written as
Madan Lal in thc referencc order hc wrote to the Joint Secretary to the
Government of t:.P. On September 19, 1991 for corn.:ction of the mistake.
Appellant sought adjournment from the Labour Court on tht ground that G
he was getting the n:ft:rence amended. This was objected to by the
employer. However, Labour Court, after hearing the parties, concluded
that instead of Madan Pal tht: name of Madan Lal had been mentioned
and that there was nu dispute between Madan Lal and the management.
lt said that in spite of the time having been given to the appellant tu gt:t J:1
74 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000) l S.C.R.

A the reference amended ......_<) mistake rectified nothing was done till the date
of the Award. It, therefore, held that there was no relationship between
Madan Lal and the management and there was no industrial dispute
existing till then. That being so there was no question of terminating the
services of Madan la! and that due to all these reasons the reference was
B bad. The Award was published on March 16, 1992.

On March 24, !992 State Governmt:nt amendt:d the reference and
said that in place of the existing name of the workman Madan Lal, Madan
Pal has been written and be read accordingly.

C Appellant again approached the Labour Court and brought to its
notict: the amended reference and prayed that in the interest of justice
nt:cessary order be passed on the reference.

By order dated June 3, 1993 Labour Court noted that order dated
March 24, 1992 had been n:ceivcd from the ~tate Government and that the
D appellant submitted application datt:d may 31, 1992 for necessary action in
the refen:nce. This was objected to by the management on the ground that
no am.:ndment could be made after the Award had been given. Agreeing
with the management the Labour Court rnjected the application of the
appellant. He then filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the
E order of the Labour Court, which, as noted above, was dismissed by the
impugned judgment.

High Court also observed that appellant was not employed to any
regular post aftt-T sdection in accordance with service rules of NOIDA and
his employment was not c 1 regular basis. His employment began in the
F morning and came to an end in the t:vt:ning ewry day. After August 7, 1986
appellant was not employed and thus for mon: than 12 years he wa~ not in
service of tht: management. High Court then went on to hold as under :

Though the mistake was unintended and could have been rectified
by the Concihation Officer himself when it was brought to his
G notice but he failed to do so. The refen:nce by the Government
was made with the wrong name and for several years the petitioner
did not care to get the reference amended. It was only when the
respondent in his .:videnct: contended that there was no employt:e
by tht: name of Madan Lal that the petitioner woke up and moved
H the Government for rectification. Hen: again the Government was
M. P. SINGH v. STAT!-<. [DP WADHWA.J.J 75

). slow while the Labour Court was quick The Labour Court decided A
'
the n:fon:nce without waiting for the correction for a rnasonable
time. Then the petitioner filed this writ petition at his own ease on
_J 13.L1994. The Stamp Reporter reported that the writ petition was
beyond 90 days by 133 days and it has remained pending in this
Court for more than 4 112 years. The result is that more than 12
years have passed since the petitioner ceast:d to be employt:d by
B
the n:spond..:nt. The petitiom:r is a contributory :o this abnormal
dday and if the matter is st:nt hack to the Labour Court it will
take further time for the dispo,al of the matter on merits. The
petitiem:r was ml:n:ly a daily wager. Therdore, in vkw of this huge
time lag 1 do not think it will h1: a proper ext:rcise of the discretion C
of this court under Article 220 of the Constitution of India to
interfon: in thi' mlitkr. Thl' writ petition is, therdore, dismissed.
Tht: partits will, however, bear their own costs."

1"othing could be more unfurtunatt: for the poor workman. Justice D
n:maint:d du,ivc, a tar cry for him in spilt: of so much laws. Slow pace of
bur.:aucracy ()n the om: hlind and rage for disposal by tht Labour Court
on tht other kd tu injustict.

During the courst: of adjudication proct:edings no ont: was in doubt
about tht: identity of the workman that it was Madan Pal Singh. The E
managemt:n.t did not raise tht: preliminary objection about the validity of
the rderence on thi:: ground that no workman by the name Madan Lal was
in its employrnt:nt and so tht: refon:ncl: was bad. Evidence had bet:n lt:d
bdort: tht: Labour ( :ourt and it is only at tht fag end of the proctedings
that it was statt:d by tht management that thcrt: was no Madan :al in its F
employmenL :'llo doubt, initially the fault lay on the workman himst:lf when
he gav.: wrung name and tht:n did not pursul: for comxtion of tht: nam..:.
T'hen: may have b1;;.:n causes for dday but it cannot be said that the
,. appellant is solely tn he blamcd for at! this. Tirelessly and singk handi;d
he has bt:t:n fighting his case against thc might of the State undertaking. If
he was in fault to any extcnt in the: dday of disposal of his casc all these G
\ yt:ars and if ultimate'y he is found to b.; entitled to rclid, thc court can
.L certainly mould the rclid suitably. Equitable wnsidt:rations can certainly
\ bc taken into account in such a case.
(
When it camL to its notice: that thc name of tht: workman was not H
76 SUPREME COt.:RT REPORTS (2CC0] 1 S.C.R.
A correctly mentioned in the reference though there was no doubt about his .(
!
identity the Labour Court itself could have sought correction of the refer-
ence from the State Government. When the appellant approached the State
Government for correcting the reference Labour Court certainly could
have waited till the State Government amended the reference or otherwise.
B If the Labour Court did not possess jurisdiction inasmuch as there was no
industrial dispuk because there was no workman in respect of whom
Industrial disputt: was sought to be raised, the reference itself was 11011 est
and the award a nullity. When the reference ha<l been amended jurisdiction
stood conferred on the Labour Court and it could have held proceedings
from the stage taking the reference to be valid from the date of its
C amendment. With the consent of the parties it could have relied upon the
evidence which it had recorded before the reference was amended.
Whatever the situation this Court cannot permit injustice to perpetuate.

Accordingly, the impugned judgmtnt of the High Court is set aside
and so is the Awa.rd dated January 31, 1992 of the Labour Court. Matter
D will go back to the Labour Court to adjudicate the industrial dispute now
between the workman Madan Pal Singh and the management being
NOIDA. It shall take on record the evidence which had already been
recorded earlier before the amendment of the reference and, if necessary,
grant further opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. Matter being old
E we need not stress for the expeditious disposal of the refen:nce by the
Labour Court.

The appeal is allowed with costs which we quantify at Rs. 10,GCO
Costs shall be payable by the State Government for its not responding to
the plea of the appellant in amending the n:ference in time and thus
F causing him sufferings and expense all these years.

R.C.K Appeal allowed.

\
-<