JUDGMENT D.P. Wadhwa, J.-Leave granted. 2. Appellant Madan Pal Singh is aggrieved by judgment dated October 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 Award dated January 31, 1992 of the Labour Court, Ghaziabad holding that there is no industrial dispute between him and the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) Ghaziabad. 3. By order dated September 16, 1988 State of UP referred the following question for adjudication by the Labour Court:- "Whether the termination dated July 5. If we now refer to the Award dated January 31, 1992 it will be seen that application before the Conciliation Officer was filed by the appellant on May 20, 1986. The appellant had demanded for regularisation of his services. His services were terminated on July 8, 1986. He demanded from his employer, the NOIDA, on October 3, 1986 that he be taken back in service and paid full back wages. He termed his termination as unjustified 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 of U.P. and had its own rules and regulations. 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, submitted by the management that the order of reference of the State of U.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 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 worked with break from time to time. It was also submitted that appellant did not work continuously and that he worked with break from time to time. It was further submitted that services of the appellant were not satisfactory and his services could not be continued. 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 evidence would be adduced for the purpose. In support of his case Madan Pal Singh examined himself. Evidence was led on behalf of the management. In his statement Pratap Kumar, Pariyojna Abhiyanta on behalf of the management said that no one by the name Madan Lal was ever employed and services of no Madan Lal were terminated on July 8, 1986. In cross-examination, however, he admitted that he knew Madan Lal and Madan Pal who was present in the Court. He denied that Madan Pal s services had been illegally terminated. 6. When the appellant came to know that his name was written as Madan Lal in the reference order he wrote to the Joint Secretary to the Government of U.P. on September 19, 1991 for correction of the mistake. Appellant sought adjournment from the Labour Court on the ground that he was getting the reference amended. This was objected to by the employer. However, Labour Court, after hearing the parties, concluded that instead of Madan Pal the name of Madan Lal had been mentioned and that there was no dispute between Madan Lal and the management. It said that in spite of the time having been given to the appellant to get the reference amended and 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 Lal and that due to all these reasons the reference was bad. The Award was published on March 16, 1992. 7. On March 24, 1992 State Government amended 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. 8. The Award was published on March 16, 1992. 7. On March 24, 1992 State Government amended 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. 8. Appellant again approached the Labour Court and brought to its notice the amended reference and prayed that in the interest of justice necessary order be passed on the reference. 9. By order dated June 3, 1993 Labour Court noted that order dated March 24, 1992 had been received from the State Government and that the appellant submitted application dated May 31, 1992 for necessary action in the reference. This was objected to by the management on the ground that no amendment could be made after the Award had been given. Agreeing with the management the Labour Court rejected the application of the appellant. He then filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the order of the Labour Court, which, as noted above, was dismissed by the impugned judgment. 10. High Court also observed that appellant was not employed to any regular post after selection in accordance with service rules of NOIDA and his employment was not on regular basis. His employment began in the morning and came to an end in the evening every day. After August 7, 1986 appellant was not employed and thus for more than 12 years he was not in service of the management. High Court then went on to hold as under:- "Though the mistake was unintended and could have been rectified by the Conciliation Officer himself when it was brought to his notice but he failed to do so. The reference 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 evidence contended that there was an employee by the name of Madan Lal that the petitioner woke up and moved the Government for rectification. Here again the Government was slow while the Labour Court was quick. The Labour Court decided the reference without waiting for the correction for a reasonable time. Then the petitioner filed this writ petition at his own ease on 13.1.1994. Here again the Government was slow while the Labour Court was quick. The Labour Court decided the reference without waiting for the correction for a reasonable time. Then the petitioner filed this writ petition at his own ease on 13.1.1994. The Stamp Reporter reported that the writ petition was beyond 90 days by 133 days and it has remained pending considerations can certainly be taken into account in such a case. 13. 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 reference 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. If the Labour Court did not possess jurisdiction inasmuch as there was no industrial dispute because there was no workman in respect of whom industrial dispute was sought to be raised, the reference itself was 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 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. 14. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and so is the Award dated January 31, 1992 of the Labour Court. Matter will go back to the Labour Court to adjudicate the industrial dispute now between the workman Madan Pal Singh and the management being the 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 we need not stress for the expeditious disposal of the reference by the Labour Court. 15. The appeal is allowed with costs which we quantify at Rs. 10,000/-. Costs shall be payable by the State Government for it not responding to the plea of the appellant in amending the reference in time and thus causing him sufferings and expense all these years. (C.R.) Appeal allowed. 15. The appeal is allowed with costs which we quantify at Rs. 10,000/-. Costs shall be payable by the State Government for it not responding to the plea of the appellant in amending the reference in time and thus causing him sufferings and expense all these years. (C.R.) Appeal allowed. *********** Parallel Citations of other Journals : Madan Pal Singh v. State of U.P., 2000(1) Supreme 61 : 2000 (1) JT LLJ 528 : (2000) 1 SCC 683 : 2000 (1) SLR 450 : 2000 (84) FLR 547 : 2000 LLR 225 : 2000 (96) FJR 251 : AIR 2000 SC 537 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 228 : 2000 Lab. I.C. 392 : 2000 Lab. ILR. 34 00033