Judgment :- J.B. Koshy, J. The main question to be decided in this case is whether appropriate Government, after passing an order of reference, could subsequently amend or modify the same. On the facts of this petition, 4th respondent was employed in the petitioner-factory. For misconducts proved in an enquiry, 4th respondent was dismissed by order dated 18.7.1989. The matter was taken up by the Union. The appropriate Government referred the matter to the Industrial Tribunal, Quilon. The issue referred for adjudication was: "Denial of employment to Smt. Sarasamma Amma, Shelling No. 58 of Mukhathala Cashew Factory with effect from 26.11.1988." During the proceedings of the case before the Industrial Tribunal, Quilon, petitioner-management raised jurisdictional objection that since 4th respondent was dismissed from service, there is no denial of employment and issue referred for adjudication is incompetent. Consequently, 4th respondent applied for amendment of reference as it was contended by the management 'denial of employment' will not cover 'dismissal' from service. Ext. P7 was therefore, issued modifying the reference changing the words 'denial of employment' to 'dismissal'. Fourth respondent was impleaded as a party in the modified reference. Under S.2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, workman himself can raise an industrial dispute if the employer discharges„ dismisses or retrenches or otherwise terminates the services of the workman. Impleadment of the workman as a party to the dispute as such is not questioned in the Original Petition. 2. Petitioner management questions Ext. P7 modified reference order on the ground that Ext. P3 reference order and Ext. P7 order modifying the reference are entirely different matter. It is contended that denial of employment and dismissal from service are entirely different and Ext. P7 modifies Ext. P3 order of reference as petitioner was able to convince the Tribunal that there is no denial of employment but only dismissal from service. It is also contended by the petitioner that if the first reference is not correct perhaps Government may issue fresh independent reference order but the existing reference order cannot be modified as an order like Ext. P7 by way of amendment of the original reference order actually nullifies the original reference order Ext. P3. 3. It is also contended by the petitioner that if the first reference is not correct perhaps Government may issue fresh independent reference order but the existing reference order cannot be modified as an order like Ext. P7 by way of amendment of the original reference order actually nullifies the original reference order Ext. P3. 3. It is submitted by the petitioner that modification of the reference order is not possible as held by this court in F.A.C.T. Employees' Association v. F.A.C.T. (1976 KLT 474) In that case, it was held that once a reference order is passed there should be an award of the Tribunal. In the above case, while confirming the exparte award of the Tribunal, it was observed that once a reference is made an award should he passed. There was no finding in the above judgment that once a reference is issued it cannot be modified or amended at all by the Government. 4. The contention of the petitioner that by changing the words 'denial of employment' in Ext. P3 to 'dismissal' in Ext. P7, Ext. P3 reference order itself is nullified, cannot be accepted. It is admitted by the petitioner management that fourth respondent was dismissed after conducting an enquiry. Even under Ext. P3 reference order correctness of the dismissal order could have been canvassed without modification by Ext. P7 as the term 'denial of employment' could cover 'dismissal from service' also. In Kollam Jilla Hotel & Shop Workers Union v. Industrial Tribunal (1997 (2) KLT 535) it was observed by this Court as follows: "Denial of employment of the workers by Management can be by different methods. It can be by dismissal, discharge, superannuation, illegally disallowing the employee to attend the company, by removal of name from the roll etc. Dismissal of an employee is one method of denial of employment. If itis found that worker is dismissed what is to be onside red is whether denial of employment by way of dismissal is correct or not. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the employees were dismissed and, therefore, mere is no denial of employment. Tribunal has to adjudicate the dispute on merit. As held by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Sheshrao Bhaduji Hatwar v. Presiding Officer, First Labour Court & Ors. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the employees were dismissed and, therefore, mere is no denial of employment. Tribunal has to adjudicate the dispute on merit. As held by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Sheshrao Bhaduji Hatwar v. Presiding Officer, First Labour Court & Ors. (1992 (1) LLJ 672) mere wording of the reference is not decisive in the matter of tenability of a reference. Eventhough Tribunal cannot go beyond the order of reference, if points of difference are discernible from the material before it, it has only one duty and that is to decide the points on merit and not to find outcome technical defects in the wording of reference, subjecting the poor workman toward ship involved in moving the machinery again." Therefore, when the question of adjudicating the issue regarding "denial of employment", "dismissal" of the 4th respondent is correct or not, can be adjudicated and Ext. P7 order and Ext. P3 reference order are not contradictory. 5. It is well settled law that the Government has no power to cancel or withdraw a reference and once an order of reference is made, the Labour Court or the Tribunal has to pass an award answering the reference order. Consequently, it can also be held that the Government has no power to amend the reference in such a way so as to supersede or cancel the original reference which has the effect of withdrawal of the original reference validly referred. But, Government has certainly power to amend or modify a reference order so as to clarity, modify or add to the reference order without cancelling the earlier reference order. As held by the Rajasthan High Court in Manager, Rashtradoot Dainik Press, Jaipur v. Rajasthan Samachar Patra Karamchari Sangh ((1977) Lab I.C. 1061) there is no bar to amend a pending reference by a subsequent notification which is in the nature of addition to or amplification of the issue already referred to adjudication. This is so because amending a reference relating to a pending dispute by way of addition or amplification thereto is not inconsistent with any of the provisions of the Act and adoption of such a course would not defeat the purposes of the Act. An inadvertent or clerical mistake also can be corrected by way of amendment as held by the Apex Court in Dabur Ltd. v. The Workmen (1967 II LLJ 836). An inadvertent or clerical mistake also can be corrected by way of amendment as held by the Apex Court in Dabur Ltd. v. The Workmen (1967 II LLJ 836). 6. Ext. P7 modification to Ext. P3 reference is only making the issue very clear. It cannot be stated that issue in Ext. P7'dismissal of service' is totally opposed to the issue in Ext. P3 reference order 'denial of employment'. 7. It is admitted by the petitioner that 4th respondent was dismissed from service. The present challenge is only technical and no prejudice is caused to the petitioner and hence Ext. P7 is not liable to be quashed by using the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. No manifest injustice is caused by Ext. P7 notification modifying the original reference. It is open to the petitioner to request for filing further statement or for adducing further evidence according to law in view of the amendment of the reference. Even if Ext. P7 is set aside, petitioner management has to justify the dismissal from service when the issue regarding denial of employment is adjudicated in Ext. P3 original reference. In any view of the matter Ext. P7 notification amending the original Ext. P3 reference order has not the effect of cancelling or withdrawing the original reference. 8. The modified reference order is dated 26.2.1991. More than seven years are over. The adjudication was stalled by the petitioner by filing the writ petition and the poor worker is put in difficulties. In these circumstances, the original petition is dismissed. Petitioner is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 2,500/- to the advocate appearing for the 4th respondent within one month from today. Considering the long delay the Industrial Tribunal, Quilon, 2nd respondent, shall proceed with the dispute as expeditiously as possible and shall complete the dispute within three months from the date of receipt of this judgment. Registry may send a copy of this judgment to the Industrial Tribunal, Quilon without any delay. Parties may appear before the Industrial Tribunal, Quilon on 25th June, 1998 at 11 a.m.