Judgment : Aggrieved by award dated 24.02.2012, the petitioner-Management of M/s Motors Limited (Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Limited) now Tata Motors Limited has challenged the validity of notification dated 17.09.1998. Sri Shashi Anugrah Narayan, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that, the challenge to the validity of notification dated 17.09.1998 may be decided as a preliminary issue. It is submitted that, the challenge of the petitioner to notification dated 17.09.1998 is the core issue involved in the writ petition because it goes to the root of the matter. With the consent of the parties the said issued has been heard as a preliminary issue. 2. Referring to notification dated 28.04.1998, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that, after having recorded a satisfaction that an industrial dispute exists between “the Management of M/s Telco Recreation Club, Jamshedpur and their workmen represented by Sri Indra Deo Prasad” and accordingly, referring the matter to the Labour Court, Jamshedpur for adjudication, it was not open to the Appropriate Government to modify/amend the said notification, unilaterally. It is stated that, by a subsequent notification dated 17.09.1998 the earlier notification has been modified/amended in as much as, in place of M/S Telco Recreation Club, Jamshedpur, the name of the petitioner has been substituted without any notice to the petitioner. It is further stated that M/s Telco Recreation Club is a separate entity registered under the Societies Registration Act and in Reference No. 06 of 1981, it has been held that M/s Telco Recreation Club has a separate identity. It is submitted that, on the application of the respondent no. 2 the Deputy Labour Commissioner issued notice to the petitioner and the petitioner appeared and filed its reply denying that the concerned workmen are its employees. On failure of the conciliation proceeding a report was sent to the Government of Bihar which after examining the matter vide notification dated 28.04.1998 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court, Jamshedpur. Relying on decision in “State of Bihar Vs. M/s Bata Shoe Company Limited and Others” reported in AIR 1958 SC 1018 , the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that, the Appropriate Government has no power to cancel or supercede reference made under Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 3. As against the above, Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned Senior counsel for the respondent no. M/s Bata Shoe Company Limited and Others” reported in AIR 1958 SC 1018 , the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that, the Appropriate Government has no power to cancel or supercede reference made under Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 3. As against the above, Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned Senior counsel for the respondent no. 2 submits that, the question of validity of notification dated 17.09.1998 raised by the petitioner is barred by constructive resjudicata. It is submitted that, notification dated 17.09.1998 does not amend or modify the reference which was made by notification dated 28.04.1998. A grievance on behalf of the concerned workmen was raised for payment of salary and other benefits at par with the regular workmen of M/s Telco Limited, Jamshedpur and thus, the dispute was between the Management of M/s Telco Limited and the cornered workmen and therefore, the substitution of M/s Telco Limited in place of M/s Telco Recreation Club was appropriate. It is further submitted that after a fullfledge trial and having failed to challenge the validity of notification dated 17.09.1998 in W.P.(L) No. 4462 of 2003, the petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge the same in the present proceeding. Referring to various paragraphs in the writ petition and averments in I.A. No. 451 of 2013, the learned Senior Counsel for respondent no. 2 submits that, the petitioner has approached this Court with unclean hands. Though a copy of notification dated 17.09.1998 was filed as Annexure3, in W.P.(L) No. 4462 of 2003, an application being I.A. No. 451 of 2013 has been filed seeking a direction upon the respondent no. 1 for producing a copy of the said notification. It is stated that, though the reference was made in the year, 1998 and the award was made in the year, 2012, the benefit of the award has not been extended to the concerned workmen even after lapse of more than twenty five years and they have been made to suffer. 4. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, the learned G.P. V appearing for the respondentState of Jharkhand submits that, there is no infirmity in notification dated 17.09.1998 and its validity cannot be challenged on the ground of violation of rules of Natural Justice. 5. Original record of the case has been received from Labour Court, Jamshedpur. The petitioner has tendered a compilation of the relevant documents and the respondent no. 5. Original record of the case has been received from Labour Court, Jamshedpur. The petitioner has tendered a compilation of the relevant documents and the respondent no. 2 has also filed supplementary affidavit bringing some of the documents on record. 6. From the record it is apparent that an application was submitted on 20.05.1996 to the Deputy Labour Commissioner by the authorized representative of the concerned workmen whereupon, a notice was issued on 18.06.1996 to the petitioner. The petitioner vide letter dated 24.06.1996 submitted its reply. A notice to the respondent no. 2 was also issued and reply dated 20.07.1996 and 24.08.1996 were submitted. It further appears that subsequently also a notice was issued to the petitioner and thus, there cannot be a dispute that the petitioner participated in the conciliation proceeding and submitted its objection to the claim raised on behalf of the concerned workmen. From application dated 20.05.1996 and the notices issued by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Jamshedpur it is gathered that a claim was made on behalf of the concerned workmen for grant of salary and other benefits to the employees of Telco Recreation Club at par with the regular employees of M/s Telco Limited. It is not in dispute that the terms of reference in notification dated 28.04.1998 has not been changed by subsequent notification dated 17.09.1998. The reference vide Annexure “A” contained in notification dated 28.04.1998 makes it abundantly clear that the concerned workmen were working with M/s Telco Recreation Club. The subsequent notification dated 17.09.1998 whereby, in the opening paragraph of the said notification in place of M/s Telco Recreation Club, Jamshedpur, the name of the petitioner has been substituted, would not make any material alteration in the notification dated 28.04.1998 and it is only a correction in notification dated 28.04.1998 which would not amount to amending notification dated 28.04.1998. Though, the effect of notification dated 17.09.1998 would be that the opening paragraph of the earlier notification would be read as if the industrial dispute exists between the Management of M/s Telco Limited, Jamshedpur and their workmen however, in view of the clear language of the reference vide Annexure “A” contained in notification dated 28.04.1998, the error which would crept in in notification dated 28.04.1998 on account of subsequent correction vide notification dated 17.09.1998, would not change the nature of dispute which has been referred for adjudication to the Labour Court. Reliance placed by the petitioner on Bata Shoe Company case does not lend help to the case of the petitioner. In the said case the company entered into a collective agreement with union which was recognised as the sole and exclusive collective bargaining agency for the workmen of the company. Subsequently, two groups of the union were formed. One group led by one Mr. Bari went on illegal strike which was declared illegal and consequently sixty workmen were dismissed from service. The Government of Bihar referred the dispute vide Reference No. 10 of 1954 with respect to thirty one workmen for adjudication and a Tribunal was constituted. Subsequently, vide notification dated 15.01.1955 a similar dispute between Bata Company and twenty nine other workmen was referred for adjudication. In the meantime, the Government of Bihar issued a third notification superseding earlier two notifications, to combine the two disputes to one dispute. In these facts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Appropriate Government had no power to cancel or superscede reference made under Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the present case as noticed hereinabove, the reference vide Annexure “A” in Notification dated 28.04.1998 was changed and thus, it was neither modified nor amended or superceded. The change which has been made in the notification dated 28.04.1998 was to substitute the petitioner in place of M/s Telco Recreation Club and no change has been made in Annexure “A”. Neither in the present proceeding nor in the previous proceeding the petitioner has challenged the terms of reference as improper. Under Section 10 (4) the Labour Court is bound to adjudicate the dispute which has been referred for adjudication. 7. The plea that without issuing notice to the petitioner and without hearing the petitioner, the Appropriate Government could not have issued notification dated 17.09.1998, is liable to be rejected. The petitioner filed its written statement in Reference No. 3 of 1998 on 07.06.1999 in which a plea was taken that the notification dated 17.09.1998 was issued in violation of the rules of principles of natural justice and therefore, it was illegal, untenable and bad in law. Award dated 24.02.2012 also discloses that the only plea taken by the petitioner for assailing notification dated 17.09.1998 was violation of principles of natural justice (Issue No. 1). Award dated 24.02.2012 also discloses that the only plea taken by the petitioner for assailing notification dated 17.09.1998 was violation of principles of natural justice (Issue No. 1). As noticed above, the correction in notification dated 28.04.1998 by the subsequent notification dated 17.09.1998 was insignificant rather, a mistake in notification dated 28.04.1998 has been corrected by the Appropriate Government for which no notice was required to be given to the petitioner. The petitioner in the proceeding in Reference No. 03 of 1998 appeared and produced its evidence. After a fullfledged trial, award dated 24.02.2012 has been passed. The petitioner, it is apparent that, never challenged the terms of reference which is contained in Annexure“A” of notification dated 28.04.1998 though, during the proceeding before the Labour Court it approached this Court in WP(L) No. 4462 of 2003. The petitioner has not shown any prejudice caused to it on account of substitution of its name in the opening paragraph of notification dated 28.04.1998. It is well settled that the application of principles of natural justice cannot be confined in a straight jacket formula. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that, “it is not only difficult but also not advisable to spell out any straight jacket formula which can be applied universally to all cases without variation.” In “K.L. Tripathi Vs. State Bank of India & Ors.”, reported in (1984) 1 SCC 43 31. “…....There must also have been some real prejudice to the complainant; there is no such thing as a merely technical infringement of natural justice. The requirements of natural justice must depend on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the nature of the inquiry, the rules under which the tribunal is acting, the subjectmatter to be dealt with, and so forth.” 8. In “Aligarh Muslim University & Ors. Vs. Mansoor Ali Khan”, reported in (2000) 7 SCC 529 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court after taking note of K.L. Tripathi case observed that, “since then, this Court has consistently applied the principle of prejudice in several cases.” It was further observed that, “there can be certain situations in which an order passed in violation of natural justice need not be set aside under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For example, where no prejudice is caused to the person concerned, interference under Article 226 is not necessary.” 9. For example, where no prejudice is caused to the person concerned, interference under Article 226 is not necessary.” 9. Considering the above facts, the preliminary issue whether “notification dated 17.09.1998 is liable to be quashed on the ground that the Appropriate Government had no power to amend/modify notification dated 28.04.1998, unilaterally”, is answered against the petitioner. 10. Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent no. 2 has indicated instances of false statements made in the writ petition and I.A. no. 451 of 2013 and submitted that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this count alone. I am of the opinion that at this stage, this plea cannot be considered. However, it would be open to the respondent no. 2 to take such plea at the time of final hearing of the writ petition. 11. Post the matter after summer vacation under the heading “For Final Disposal”.