Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 14 (JHR)

Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union v. Union Of India

2003-01-03

TAPEN SEN

body2003
ORDER Tapen Sen, J. 1. Heard Mr. R.S. Majumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that although the dispute specifically related to various persons including Gopal Napit whose name was mentioned at Sl. No. 37 of the letter by which the dispute was raised (Annexure 1), yet the appropriate Government while making reference, annexed a list in which the name of Gopal Napit was wrongly typed as Gopal Nishad [Annexure A appended to Annexure 4 (pages 32 to 34 of this Writ Application)]. The further grievance of the writ petitioner is that at the time of filing of the written statement, this fact was brought to the notice of the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad and at paragraph 21 they specifically stated that it was an inadvertent typing mistake and the name should have been Ganesh Napit and not Ganesh Nishad. 3. Mr. R.S. Majumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner states that in view of the aforementioned facts, the learned Tribunal should have given necessary relief to this Gopal Napit also while he passed award granting relief to the other workmen, i.e. those listed except Sl. No. 37 (Gopal Napit/Gopal Nishad) and at Sl. No. 71 and 76. However, Mr. R.S. Majumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned only with the name mentioned at Sl. No. 37, i.e., Gopal Napit/Gopal Nishad. 4. Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that there is no infirmity with the award at all because it is a well known principle that a labour Court has to give its findings strictly on the basis of the reference which may have been referred to it for adjudication and he cannot travel beyond the scope of the reference. He further submits that if the petitioner was at all aggrieved, he should have challenged the reference itself, but having not done so no relief can be granted to the writ petitioner in this Writ Application because there is no infirmity to that extent in the impugned award in so far as the name of Gopal Napit/Nishad is concerned. 5. This Court is inclined to accept the submissions of Mr. 5. This Court is inclined to accept the submissions of Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel for the respondents and holds that the award does not suffer from any infirmity inasmuch as there is no award in favour of Gopal Napit because there was no such reference which included his name. In that view of the matter, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this Writ Application. However, taking into consideration the facts pleaded specifically in this Writ Application as also before the labour Court in the written statement, this Court considers it expedient in the interests of justice to give liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate Government for necessary correction in accordance with law. It goes without saying that if such an application is made the appropriate Government shall look into the matter and if in fact, there has been such a mistake, they would act in accordance with law and would do the needful within a period of six months from the date of receipt of such representation/application. 6. With the aforementioned observations, this Writ Application is disposed off.