JUDGMENT ABHAY M. NAIK, J. (1.) THIS writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against the orders dated 30-6-2010, 12-8-2010 and 6-10-2010, passed by Shri A. K. Tailor, Presiding Judge of Labour Court, Dewas under the Industrial Disputes Act, in Case No. 27/(I. D. Act)10. (2.) THE relevant facts giving rise to the present matter are that the petitioner in the instant case is a registered Labour Union having its members who are employees of M/s Hind Filters Limited (respondent No. 2). Respondent No. 1 is the factory manager in M/s Hind Filters Limited. THE petitioner initiated proceedings demanding enhancement of pay scale, allowances, leave encashment etc. in favour of its members. On account of failure of conciliation proceedings, the Labour Commissioner forwarded the dispute, vide his order dated 7-8-2002 to the Labour Court, Dewas, wherein the same was registered as reference case No. 46/ID/02 under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner/Union filed its statement of claim under section 10-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, which was replied on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 vide Annexure P-7. Later on, it was amended vide Annexure P-8 to the effect that there were not more than 100 workmen in the employment of respondent. The Labour Court had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act. The learned Presiding Judge of the Labour Court, Dewas raised various issues and after the trial passed an award dated 10-2-2006 in favour of the petitioner as revealed in Annexure P-9. (3.) RESPONDENTS No. 1 and 2 being aggrieved by Annexure P-9 submitted W. P. No. 2375/2006 (S) before this Court which was disposed of vide Order 6-1-2010 (Annexure P-10) with a liberty to the management to approach the Labour Court, Dewas by filing an appropriate application for correction of factual error. (4.) ON coming to know, the petitioner submitted Review Petition No. 46/2010 before this Court which was dismissed vide Annexure P-11 dated 12-3- 2010 with an observation that this Court in W. P. No. 2375/2006(S) had not commented with regard to the maintainability of the application of the management before the Labour Court nor any other issue of facts was noticed. Respondents No. 1 and 2 submitted an application before the Labour Court on 2-2-2010, pursuant to the order contained in Annexure P-10, which was passed in the absence of the counsel for the petitioner. Copy of the application is on record as Annexure P-12. They vide Annexure P-12 sought the following reliefs :- "(i) It is therefore prayed that the finding in the order dated 10-2-2006 of the Labour Court, Dewas (M.P.) presided over by Shri Subir Yadav and pronounced on 31-3-2006, being an order on reference under section 14(1) Industrial Disputes Act, in case No. 46/I.d/02 with respect to the number of workmen be reconsidered/ revised/ corrected and for such purpose the petitioner is ready and willing to lead evidence. (ii) When the Correct finding is arrived at then this Hon'ble Court may pass suitable orders that no revision or enhancement can be made because of the number of workmen. (iii) On reaching the finding about the number of workmen may return the matter to the Labour Commissioner for appropriate orders or may hold that the Labour Court does not have jurisdiction, in view of the number of workmen". The petitioner vide Annexure P-13 submitted its reply contending thereby that additional issue No. 1 was raised by the Labour Court that whether it had jurisdiction on account there being more than 100 workmen in the employment of the respondent. Since W.P. No. 2375/2006 (S) was disposed of without disturbing the award of the Labour Court, the findings contained in the award cannot be interfered with and the application of the respondents is liable to dismissal. (5.) RESPONDENTS No. 1 and 2 submitted another application (Annexure P-14) seeking permission to file documents which were annexed to it. It is pertinent to note that five documents as additional documentary evidence were submitted which were in relation to the strength of workmen in the respondent/Factory. This, too, was opposed vide reply Annexure P-15. (6.) RESPONDENTS No. 1 and 2 submitted one more application for summoning witnesses in order to prove the documents annexed to Annexure P-14. This, too, was opposed vide reply Annexure P-18. The Presiding Judge of the Labour Court, Dewas vide its order dated 30- 6-2010, allowed the application contained in Annexure P-14 taking thereby the enclosed documents on record. Copy of the said order is on record as Annexure P-1. This, too, was opposed vide reply Annexure P-18. The Presiding Judge of the Labour Court, Dewas vide its order dated 30- 6-2010, allowed the application contained in Annexure P-14 taking thereby the enclosed documents on record. Copy of the said order is on record as Annexure P-1. Learned Presiding Judge vide his order dated 12-8-2010 rejected the objection of the petitioner and fixed the case for evidence of respondents No. 1 and 2 after observing that this Court in W.P. No. 2375/2006 (S) has directed to record the facts pertaining to the jurisdiction of the Labour Court. Copy of this order is on record as Annexure P-2. The Presiding Judge of the Labour Court, Dewas thereafter allowed the application contained in Annexure P-17 allowing thereby the respondents No. 1 and 2 to summon their witnesses. Orders contained in Annexure P-l, P-2 and P-3 are under challenge in the present writ petition. (7.) MS. Mini Ravindran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri G. M. Chaphekar, learned senior counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 and 2 made their respective submissions. (8.) MS. Mini Ravindran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the W.P. No. 2375/2006 (S) was disposed of without disturbing the award. The only liberty granted to respondents No. 1 and 2 was for correction of factual error which meant a clerical or arithmetic error under Rule 28 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957. Under the garb of correction of factual error no evidence can be permitted which may have the effect on the award which has attained finality. She has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of U.P.S.R.T.C vs. Imtiaz Hussain AIR 2006 SC 649 . Contention of the learned senior counsel is that the Labour Court, Dewas assumed jurisdiction over the matter by committing a factual error by holding that there were less than 100 workmen in the employment of respondents No. 1 and 2. Attention of this Court to the said factual error was brought into notice in W.P. No. 2375/2006 (S), whereupon a liberty was granted to move an application for correction of factual error. Accordingly, the impugned orders are quite valid and no interference is warranted. (9.) CONSIDERED the submissions and perused the record. Attention of this Court to the said factual error was brought into notice in W.P. No. 2375/2006 (S), whereupon a liberty was granted to move an application for correction of factual error. Accordingly, the impugned orders are quite valid and no interference is warranted. (9.) CONSIDERED the submissions and perused the record. (10.) ADMITTEDLY, the Presiding Judge of the Labour Court, Dewas under the Industrial Disputes Act made an award dated 10-2-2006 (Annexure P-9) in favour of the petitioner against the respondents No. 1 and 2. Various issues were raised by the Labour Court which included specific additional issue that whether the Labour Court had no jurisdiction because of their being more than 100 workmen in the employment of party No. 2 (i.e. respondents No. 1 and 2). The learned Presiding Judge of the Labour Court, Dewas in paragraph 7 of the award has observed that party No. 2 had produced various list contained in Ex.D-2 to D-6, wherein the salary of the workmen was entered. He has observed that as per the said list, the number of workmen in the employment of party No. 2 for the period from the year 2001-2006 was 92 in every year. Thus, relying upon the evidence produced by respondents No. 1 and 2 themselves it was held that there were less than 100 workmen in the employment of respondents No. 1 and 2 and the Labour Court had thus requisite jurisdiction. Accordingly, the issue was decided in favour of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the award as well as the aforesaid issue pertaining to jurisdiction, W.P. No. 2375/2006 (S) was preferred by respondents No. 1 and 2 which came up for hearing on 6-1-2010, when it was argued the Labour Court had fallen into factual error in passing the award dated 10-2-2006. Without adverting to the merits of the controversy, the writ petition was disposed of with a liberty to the management to approach the Labour Court, Dewas by filing an appropriate application for correction of the factual error. The petitioner submitted R.P. No. 46/2010, wherein this Court observed on 12-3-2010 vide (Annexure P-11) that at no stage this Court in W.P. No. 2375/2006(S) had ever commented with regard to the maintainability of the application of the management before the Labour Court nor any other issue on facts was noticed. The petitioner submitted R.P. No. 46/2010, wherein this Court observed on 12-3-2010 vide (Annexure P-11) that at no stage this Court in W.P. No. 2375/2006(S) had ever commented with regard to the maintainability of the application of the management before the Labour Court nor any other issue on facts was noticed. It was further observed in Annexure P-11 that liberty was granted as per the request made on behalf of the management without granting any relief to the management. Thus, it is quite obvious that this Court did not disturb in the least the award even in part, The issue pertaining to jurisdiction of the Labour Court on the ground of there being less than 100 workmen in the employment of respondents No. 1 and 2 was decided in favour of the petitioner, which on account of disposal of W.P. No. 2375/2006 (S) attained finality. A liberty was granted to the petitioner to seek correction of factual error. Rule 28 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 provides for correction of clerical mistake or error arising from an accidental slip or omission in the award. This provision is reproduced below for convenience :- "28. Correction of errors.- The labour Court, Tribunal, National Tribunal or Arbitrator may correct any clerical mistake or error arising from an accidental slip or omission in any award it/he issues". An identical provision is also contained in section 152 of Code of Civil Procedure which is as follows:- "152. Amendment of judgments/decrees or orders. Clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may at any time be corrected by the Court either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties". (11.) HON'ble 'Supreme Court of India in the case of Jayalakshmi Coelho vs. Oswald Joseph Coelho, 2001(2) MPLJ (SC) 556 = AIR 2001 SC 1084 has explained the ambit and scope of section 152 in the following passages :- "14. The basis of the provision under section 152, Civil Procedure Code is found on the maxim "Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit" i.e. an act of Court shall prejudice no man (Jenk Cent-118) as observed in a case reported in AIR 1981 Gauhati 41. The Assam Tea Corporation Ltd. vs. Narayan Singh. Hence, an unintentional mistake of the Court which may prejudice cause of any party must be rectified. The Assam Tea Corporation Ltd. vs. Narayan Singh. Hence, an unintentional mistake of the Court which may prejudice cause of any party must be rectified. In another case reported in AIR 1962 SC 633 , Janakirama Iyer vs. P. M. Nilakanta Iyer it was found that by mistake words "net profit" was written in the decree in place of "mesne profit". This mistake was found to be clear by looking to the earlier part of the judgment. The mistake was held to be inadvertent. In Bhikhi Lal vs. Tribeni, AIR 1965 SC 1935 , it was held that a decree which was in conformity with the judgment was not liable to be corrected. In another case reported in AIR 1966 SC 1047 , Master Construction Co. (P) Ltd. vs. State of Orissa, it has been observed that arithmetical mistake is a mistake of calculation, a clerical mistake is a mistake in writing or typing whereas an error arising out of or occurring from accidental slip or omission is an error due to careless mistake on the part of the Court liable to be corrected, To illustrate the point, it has been indicated as an example that in case where the order may contain something which is not mentioned in the decree would be a case of unintentional omission or mistake, Such omissions are attributable to the Court who may say something or omit to say something which it did not intend to say or omit. No new arguments or re-arguments on merits are required for such rectification of mistake. In a case reported in (1999) 3 SCC 500 : (1999 AIR SCW 663: AIR 1999 SC 1031 ), Dwarkadas vs. State of M. P. this Court has held that the correction in the order or decree should be of the mistake or omission which is accidental and not intentional without going into the merits of the case. It is further observed that the provisions cannot be invoked to modify, alter or add to the terms of the original decree so as to in effect pass an effective judicial order after the judgment in the case. It is further observed that the provisions cannot be invoked to modify, alter or add to the terms of the original decree so as to in effect pass an effective judicial order after the judgment in the case. The trial Court had not granted the interest pendente lite though such a prayer was made in the plaint but on an application moved under section 152, Civil Procedure Code the interest pendente lite was awarded by correcting the judgment and the decree on the ground that non-awarding of the interest pendente lite was an accidental omission. It was held that the High Court was right in setting aside the order. Liberal use of the provisions under section 152, Civil Procedure Code by the Courts beyond its scope has been deprecated. While taking the above view this Court had approved the judgment of the Madras High Court in Thirugnanavalli Ammal vs. P. Venugopala Pillai, AIR 1940 Madras 29 and relied on Maharaj Puttu Lal vs. Sripal Singh, reported in AIR 1937 Oudh 191 : ILR 12 Lucknow 759. Similar view is found to have been taken by this Court in a case reported in (1996) 11 SCC 528 , State of Bihar vs. Nilmani Sahu, where the Court in the guise of arithmetical mistake on re-consideration of the matter came to a fresh conclusion as to the number of trees and the valuations thereof in the matter which had already been finally decided : Similarly in the case of Bai Shakriben (dead) by Natwar Melsingh vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, reported in (1996) 4 SCC 533 : (1996 AIR SCW 2645: AIR 1996 SC 3323 ) this Court found omission of award of additional amount under section 23 (1-A), enhanced interest under section 28 and solatium etc. could not be treated as clerical or arithmetical error in the order. The application for amendment of the decree in awarding of the amount as indicated above was held to be bad in law. 15. As a matter of fact such inherent powers would generally be available to all Courts and authorities irrespective of the fact whether the provisions contained under section 152, Civil Procedure Code may or may not strictly apply to any particular proceeding. 15. As a matter of fact such inherent powers would generally be available to all Courts and authorities irrespective of the fact whether the provisions contained under section 152, Civil Procedure Code may or may not strictly apply to any particular proceeding. In a matter where it is clear that something which the Court intended to do but the same was accidentally slipped or any mistake creeps in due to clerical or arithmetical mistake it would only advance the ends of justice to enable the Court to rectify such mistake. But before exercise of such power the Court must be legally satisfied and arrive at a valid finding that the order or the decree contains or omits something which was intended to be otherwise that is to say while passing the decree the Court must have in its mind that the order or decree should be passed in a particular manner but that intention is not translated into the decree or order due to clerical, arithmetical error or accidental slip. The facts and circumstances may provide due to the fact as to what was intended by the Court but unintentionally the same does mention in the order or the judgment or something which was intended to be there stands added to it. The power of rectification of clerical arithmetical errors or accidental slip does not empower the Court to have a second thought over the matter and to find that a better order or decree could or should be passed. There should not be re-consideration of merits of the matter to come to a conclusion that it would have been better and in the fitness of things to have passed an order as sought to be passed on rectification. On a second thought Court may find that it may have committed a mistake in passing an order in certain terms but every such mistake does not permit its rectification in exercise of Court's inherent powers as contained under section 152, Civil Procedure Code. It is to be confined to something initially intended but left out or added against such intention". (12.) SINCE W. P. No. 2375/2006(S) was disposed of merely with a liberty to seek correction of factual error, respondents No. 1 and 2 are confined to seek correction of merely factual error. It is to be confined to something initially intended but left out or added against such intention". (12.) SINCE W. P. No. 2375/2006(S) was disposed of merely with a liberty to seek correction of factual error, respondents No. 1 and 2 are confined to seek correction of merely factual error. Any findings recorded by the Labour Court on the basis of evidence on record cannot be disturbed under the garb of correction of factual error, No fresh evidence can be permitted to be adduced for making a change in the award which had attained finality. We may profitably refer to the following passages from the decision of the Apex Court in the case of U.P.S.R.T.C vs. Imtiaz Hussain, AIR 2006 SC 649 . "8. The basis of the provision under section 152 of the Code is founded on the maxim 'actus curiae neminem gravabit' i.e. an act of Court shall prejudice no man. The maxim "is founded upon justice and good sense and affords a safe and certain guide for the administration of the law", said Cresswell, J. in Feeman V. Tranah (12 C.B.406). An unintentional mistake of the Court which may prejudice the cause of any party must and alone could be rectified. In Master Construction C. (p) Ltd. vs. State of Orissa, AIR 1966 SC 1047 it was observed that the arithmetical mistake is a mistake of calculation, a clerical mistake is a mistake in writing or typing whereas an error arising out of or occurring from accidental slip or omission is an error due to careless mistake on the part of the Court liable to be corrected. To illustrate this point it was said that in a case where the order contains something which is not mentioned in the decree, it would be a case of unintentional omission or mistake as the mistake or omission is attributable to the Court which may say something or omit to say something which it did not intend to say or omit. No new arguments or re-arguments on merits can be entertained to facilitate such rectification of mistakes. The provision cannot be invoked to modify, alter or add to the terms of the original order or decree so as to, in effect pass an effective judicial order after the judgment in the case. 9. No new arguments or re-arguments on merits can be entertained to facilitate such rectification of mistakes. The provision cannot be invoked to modify, alter or add to the terms of the original order or decree so as to, in effect pass an effective judicial order after the judgment in the case. 9. The maxim of equity, namely, actus curiae neminem gravabit-an act of Court shall prejudice no man, shall be applicable. This maxim is founded upon justice and good sense which serves a safe and certain guide for the administration of law. The other maxim is, lex non cogit ad impossible- the law does not compel a man to do what he cannot possibly perform. The law itself and its administration is understood to disclaim as it does in its general aphorisms, all intention of compelling impossibilities, and the administration of law must adopt that general exception in the consideration of particular cases. The applicability of the aforesaid maxims has been approved by this Court in Raj Kumar Dey vs. Tarapada Dey, 1987 (4) SCC 398 , Gursharan Singh vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee, 1996 (2) SCC 459 and Mohammod Gazi vs. State of M. P. and others, 2000 (4) SCC 342 . The principles as applicable to section 152, Civil Procedure Code are clearly applicable to section 6(6) of the U. P. Act. In the aforesaid background the Labour Court was not justified in modifying the award as was originally made". In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the respondents No. 1 and 2 even under the garb of the liberty granted to them by this Court in W.P. o. 2375/2006 (S) have no right to seek correction of findings recorded by the Labour Court, Dewas in its award dated 10-2-2006, on the basis of evidence adduced by the petitioner as well as respondents No. 1 and 2 during trial. The award has already attained finality and findings contained in it cannot be now disturbed after the disposal of W.P. o. 2375/2006 (S) on 6-1-2010. No doubt a liberty for correction of factual error was granted to respondents No. 1 and 2 which may be availed merely within the ambit of Rule 28 of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957. This liberty cannot be invoked to modify, alter or add to the terms of the award dated 10-2-2006. No doubt a liberty for correction of factual error was granted to respondents No. 1 and 2 which may be availed merely within the ambit of Rule 28 of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957. This liberty cannot be invoked to modify, alter or add to the terms of the award dated 10-2-2006. This being so, respondents No. 1 and 2 may exercise the liberty merely within the ambit of Rule 28 of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 or at the most section 152 of Civil Procedure Code and not beyond it. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned orders contained in Annexure P-1, P-2 and P-3 are hereby set aside. Labour Court, Dewas is directed to allow the respondents No. 1 and 2 to exercise the liberty in relation to errors keeping in view this order and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Jayalakshmi Coelho (supra) and Imtiaz Hussain (supra). No order as to costs. C. C. as per rules. Petition allowed.