ORDER : 1. Learned advocate Mr. Gandhi tenders a draft amendment. The same is taken on record and granted. 2. Necessary amendment be carried out forthwith. The amendment reads as under:- “Indorama Ventures Oxides Ankleshwar Pvt. Ltd. (earlier known as Huntsman Performance Products (India) Pvt. Ltd.) Having its registered Officer at: 6th Floor, B Wing, Marwah Centre, Krishanlal Larwah Marg, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400072 And also at: Plot No. 321, G. I.D.C., Panoli, Taluka Ankleshwar, Dist. Bharuch.” 3. In view of the above amendment, the petition which was earlier filed in the name of Huntsman Performance Products International (India) Pvt. Ltd. would now be known as Indorama Ventures Oxides Ankleshwar Pvt. Ltd.. However, for the purpose of clarity and convenience, in the entire order the petitioner is referred to as Huntsman Performance Products International (India) Pvt. Ltd. 4. By way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 13.12.2017 passed by the Labour Court No.1, Bharuch in Review Application No. 1 of 2017. 5. Heard learned advocate Mr. Keyur Gandhi for learned advocate Mr. Nisarg Desai for Gandhi Law Associates for the petitioners and learned advocate Mr. Yogen Pandya for the respondent – Workman. 6. Facts giving rise to the filing of the present petition are stated as under:- The workman was serving in one Laffans Petrochimicals Ltd., at Panoli, Taluka:- Ankaleshwar, District:- Bharuch. On 01.12.2010 his services were allegedly terminated, however, the case of Laffans Petrochimicals Ltd. was that his services were not terminated but he had resigned from the company. After the aforesaid incident took place on 01.12.2010, the workman raised the Industrial Dispute and the same culminated into Reference (LCB) No. 55 of 2011. 7. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 15.04.2011. In the meantime, the Laffans Petrochimicals Ltd. by virtue of scheme of demerger was demerged and the present petitioner i.e. Huntsman International (India) Private Ltd. was demerged from the aforesaid company, the demerger took place on 11.03.2011. Thereafter, the present respondent vide Exh. 8 made an application for impleading the present petitioner as opponent no. 2 in the aforesaid reference (LCB) No. 55 of 2011. On the aforesaid application, an endorsement of No Objection was given by the advocate for the present petitioner and thereafter, the workman filed revised demand notice vide Exh. Thereafter, the present respondent vide Exh. 8 made an application for impleading the present petitioner as opponent no. 2 in the aforesaid reference (LCB) No. 55 of 2011. On the aforesaid application, an endorsement of No Objection was given by the advocate for the present petitioner and thereafter, the workman filed revised demand notice vide Exh. 15. 8. Thereafter, the present petitioner who was joined as respondent no. 2 appeared before the Labour Court and filed its written statement. As per the written statement, it was brought to the notice of the Court that a scheme of demerger has taken place and on account of the aforesaid scheme of demerger, the present petitioner contested the reference before the Labour Court on merits. Even, in the reply also the present petitioner addressed the issue before the Labour Court on merits. 9. After considering the material available on record and on the basis of evidence recorded by the Labour Court passed an order dated 21.07.2017 passed by Labour Court No. 1 in Reference (LCB) No. 55 of 2011 whereby the reference was partly allowed and the Labour Court ordered Laffans Petrochemicals Ltd. to reinstate the workman within a period of 30 days from the date of publication of the award and also directed the company to pay 20% back wages to the workman from 01.12.2010. The Labour Court also awarded the cost of Rs. 1000/- in favour of the workman. 10. Because of the scheme of demerger, since, the Laffans Petrochemicals Ltd. Plant was occupied by Huntsman Performance Products (India) Private Ltd., the workman felt that it is the present petitioner namely Huntsman Performance Products (India) Private Ltd. against whom the directions were required to be issued. 11. As the factory premises was earlier occupied by Laffans Petrochemicals Ltd. which and taken over by the present petitioner namely Huntsman Performance Products (India) Private Ltd and it was functioning at the said premises and therefore, a review application was preferred being Review Application No. 1 of 2017. The review application was objected by the present petitioner on the ground that the same was not maintainable. 12. The review application was objected by the present petitioner on the ground that the same was not maintainable. 12. However, by taking resort to Rule 31 of Industrial Dispute (Bombay) Rules, 1957 which is for correcting the clerical mistakes, the Labour Court entertained the review application and vide order dated 13.12.2017 allowed the review application and corrected the operative portion of the award and replaced the present petitioners in place of Laffans Petrochemicals Ltd.. 13. Being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, the present petition is preferred. 14. The petition is preferred in the year 2018 and notice was issued on 08.03.2018. Though no relief was granted in favour of the petitioner, till today, it is reported that the respondent - workmen has not been reinstated. 15. Learned advocate Mr. Keyur Gandhi appearing for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the review application was not maintainable and yet the same was entertained by the Labour Court. He submitted that as per the scheme of demerger, the liability in respect of labourers etc. were to be borne by Laffans Petrochemicals Ltd. and therefore, if at all, in the event of reinstatement it was for the Laffans Petrochemicals Ltd. that was required to reinstate the present workman and not the present petitioner. 16. Learned advocate Mr. Gandhi also submitted that though at the time when the reference was heard and order was passed in the month of July, 2017 in the main reference, the demerger scheme was not on record but subsequently, at the time of review, the same was placed on record and it was pointed out to the Labour Court that it is not the present petitioner who is required to enshoulder the responsibility of the respondent workman, but it is for the Laffans Petrochemicals Ltd. as per the scheme of demerger which was required to reinstate. 17. He further submitted that even as per the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the review application before the Labour Court is not maintainable. He relied upon the judgment in case of Kapra Mazdoor Ekta Union V/s. Birla Cotton Spinning And Weaving Mills Ltd. and Another reported in 2005 (13) SCC 777 and also in case of M/s. Tata Consulting Engineers V/s. Workmen reported in 1980 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases 627. 18. He relied upon the judgment in case of Kapra Mazdoor Ekta Union V/s. Birla Cotton Spinning And Weaving Mills Ltd. and Another reported in 2005 (13) SCC 777 and also in case of M/s. Tata Consulting Engineers V/s. Workmen reported in 1980 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases 627. 18. By relying upon the judgment of Kapra Mazdoor Ekta Union V/s. Birla Cotton Spinning And Weaving Mills Ltd., learned advocate Mr. Gandhi submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that any review on merit by the Labour Court is not maintainable as the same is impermissible. He submitted that the Labour Court has exceeded its jurisdiction by entertaining the review application as the Labour Court even after knowing that as per the scheme of demerger, it was the responsibility of Laffans Petrochemicals Ltd. to reinstate the respondent workman, the Labour Court having knowledge about the scheme of demerger went on to replace the present petitioners in place of Laffans Petrochemicals Ltd. which is not permissible as per the law. Learned advocate Mr. Gandhi further relied upon the decision in case of M/s. Tata Consulting Engineers V/s. Workmen and more particularly, paragraph no. 20 of the said judgment and submitted that while entertaining the review application preferred by the workman, the Labour Court has relied upon Rule 31 of Industrial Dispute (Bombay) Rules, 1957. However, Rule 31 would be applicable only in cases of clerical error which has occurred on account of accidental slip or omission. In the instant case, the respondent workman could not prove that the order passed by the Labour Court was on account of any accidental slip or omission and therefore, the review application by taking into consideration the Rule 31 was not maintainable. 19. Learned advocate Mr. Gandhi further submitted that during the discussion, the Labour Court took a view that the present petitioners are added in the operative portion. However, in the operative portion, the Labour Court replaced the original respondent no. 1 Lafans by the present petitioner and therefore, the operative portion of the order in review application is not in consonance with the observations made in the foregoing paragraph of the award. 20. By making the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Mr. Gandhi prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 13.12.2017 passed by the Labour Court No.1 , Bharuch in Review Application No. 1 of 2017. 21. Learned advocate Mr. 20. By making the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Mr. Gandhi prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 13.12.2017 passed by the Labour Court No.1 , Bharuch in Review Application No. 1 of 2017. 21. Learned advocate Mr. Gandhi submitted that after the award was passed, the Labour Court becomes functus officio and therefore, also review application is not maintainable. 22. Learned advocate Mr. Yogen Pandaya vehemently opposed this petition and submitted that though the petitioner was aware about the fact that this reference application being Reference No. 55 of 2011 was pending before the Labour Court, Bharuch since, 2011, it is the present petitioner who drew attention of the Labour Court at Bharuch during the reference proceedings that there is a scheme of demerger has taken place and though the aforesaid facts were pointed out to the Labour Court, the scheme of demerger was never placed on record of the Labour Court. In absence of there being any scheme of demerger or in absence of any averments about a particular clause of the scheme on record, the Labour cannot be expected to know what are the contents of the aforesaid scheme. If according to the aforesaid scheme liability of labour including the present petitioner was to be borne by Laffans Petrochemicals Ltd., in that case, the said facts could have been pointed out to the Labour Court at the relevant point of time by the petitioner. The petitioner only brought to the notice of the Labour Court that there is a scheme of demerger and on account of the aforesaid scheme, the petitioner contested the reference before the Labour Court without bringing it to the knowledge of the Labour Court that it is not liability of the present petitioner to reinstate the workman. 23. Learned advocate Mr. Pandya further submitted that even the conduct of the present petitioner before the Labour Court was such that in the event if the workman succeeds in the proceedings before the Labour Court, it was the present petitioner who would have to reinstate the respondent – workman. To substantiate the aforesaid submission, learned advocate Mr. 23. Learned advocate Mr. Pandya further submitted that even the conduct of the present petitioner before the Labour Court was such that in the event if the workman succeeds in the proceedings before the Labour Court, it was the present petitioner who would have to reinstate the respondent – workman. To substantiate the aforesaid submission, learned advocate Mr. Pandya drew attention of this Court to the written statement filed by the present petitioner before the Labour Court and pointed out that in the entire written statement, the present petitioner has opposed the reinstatement and has tried to justify the action by stating that it was the resignation of the workman which was considered by the management and he was never terminated. On 01.12.2010, when the alleged termination took place, the company was not demerged, there was no scheme of demerger and therefore, had the liability of workman not been taken over by the petitioner – company, the petitioner would not have contested the reference on merits but could have simply brought it to the notice of the Labour Court that it is not the liability of the present petitioner to reinstate in case if the reference is decided in favour of the workman but by participating in the reference proceeding as well as by contesting the reference and resisting the reinstatement of workman. By the conduct of the petitioner, it can be clearly said that it was the present petitioner who was knowing fully well that in event, if the workman succeeds in the reference proceedings, it will be the present petitioner who will have to execute the order that may be passed by Labour Court. 24. Learned advocate Mr. Pandaya further pointed out from the record that though once the matter was referred to the Labour Court and notice was issued, upon issuance of notice, though Laffans Petrochemical Ltd. received the notice but never appeared before the Labour Court and it is only the present petitioner who contested the reference before the Labour Court which also would make it clear that the present petitioner was absolutely well aware about the consequences. In event if the any directions to reinstate the workman would be issued, it will be present petitioner who will have to reinstate the workman and therefore, at the stage of review, the present petitioner was not justified in raising objection about maintainability of review. 25. In event if the any directions to reinstate the workman would be issued, it will be present petitioner who will have to reinstate the workman and therefore, at the stage of review, the present petitioner was not justified in raising objection about maintainability of review. 25. Learned advocate Mr. Pandya further submitted that when Laffans Petrochimicals Ltd. has never contested the reference and all throughout the reference was contested by the present petitioner, the intention of the Labour Court was very clear that the directions for reinstatement of the workman were issued to the present petitioner. However, it is because of slip of pen or because of some clerical error like omission, in the operative portion, the directions were issued against the Laffans Petrochimicals Ltd. and not against the present petitioner and therefore, the review application was rightly preferred by the present respondent – workman. 26. Learned advocate Mr. Pandaya further submitted that the judgments relied upon by learned advocate Mr. Gandhi would help the respondent - workman more than the petitioner for the reason that even in that judgment in case of Kapra Mazdoor Ekta Union V/s. Birla Cotton Spinning And Weaving Mills Ltd., the Hon’ble Supreme Court has though held that any review on merit would be impermissible. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has as well held the fact that any review on procedure would be maintainable. In the instant case, during the proceedings of review and while passing the impugned order, the Labour Court has not discussed the merit and merely corrected the error committed at the time passing the final order in the reference and therefore, the review application preferred by the respondent – workman can be said to be a review on procedure and not a review on merit. 27. He further submitted that even the judgment in case of Tata Consulting Engineer (Supra) and more particularly, paragraph no 20 relied upon by learned advocate Mr. 27. He further submitted that even the judgment in case of Tata Consulting Engineer (Supra) and more particularly, paragraph no 20 relied upon by learned advocate Mr. Gandhi also would make it crystal clear that any accidental slip or omission implies that something was intended and contrary to that intention and what should not have been included has been included or what should have been included has been omitted and therefore, for rectifying such kind of clerical errors by resorting to Rule 31 of the Industrial Dispute (Bombay) Rules, 1957, the Labour Court has rightly entertained the review application preferred by the petitioner and therefore, the same was very much maintainable and the order has rightly been rectified as per the intention of the Labour Court which can be said to be a clerical error which is permissible as per Rule 31 of the Rules. 28. By making the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Mr. Pandaya prayed for dismissal of the petition. 29. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. I have perused the record and considered the decisions relied upon by learned advocate Mr. Gandhi for the petitioner. 30. On perusal of original award dated 21.07.2017, this Court finds that at the time, when the aforesaid reference was decided, the petitioner – Company was impleaded as party respondent on account of an application preferred by the workman below Exh. 8. On perusal of order passed in review application and which is subject matter of challenge, the Labour Court has categorically stated in the order that there was an endorsement of No Objection on 29.11.2013 by the advocate for the proposed respondent and on the basis of the aforesaid endorsement of no objection, the present petitioner was impleaded as party respondent in the aforesaid proceedings. 31. This Court also perused the reply filed before the Labour Court in the main Reference Application No. 55 of 2011 which is produced at page no. 31. This Court also perused the reply filed before the Labour Court in the main Reference Application No. 55 of 2011 which is produced at page no. 64 of the petition and on perusal of reply, the Court finds that in the initial paragraph of the reply though the petitioner has brought it to the notice of the Labour Court that in view of the scheme of demerger duly approved by the High Court of Gujarat as well as High Court of Bombay, the present petitioner has filed the written statement and though the written statement runs into 14 pages in the entire written statement, the petitioner did not bring it to the notice of the Labour Court the contents which would absolve the petitioners from the liability of workman as it is contended before this Court that as per the scheme of demerger and more particularly as per condition no. 5 of the said scheme which speaks about liabilities that remain with the demerged company, the liability in respect of Labour alongwith other liabilities like income tax, sales tax, operational or environmental matters etc. would remain with the demerge company. 32. However, the fact remains that the aforesaid scheme of demerger was never placed on record before the Labour Court not it was contended on the basis of the aforesaid clause no. 5 of scheme of demerger that in case if the Labour Court directs the reinstatement of the workman, the same would be the liability of the demerge company i.e. Laffans Petrochemicals Ltd. and not the present petitioner. 33. It is true that the aforesaid fact was brought to the notice of the Labour Court at the time of review, but as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court the review on merit is impermissible and therefore, the Labour Court has rightly discarded the aforesaid fact. The Labour Court did not consider the issue that whose liability to reinstate by considering the scheme of demerger. Had the Labour Court while reviewing the original order dated 21.07.2017 considered the scheme of demerger and had observed anything on merit, in that case, it could have been said to be review on merit and same could not have been permitted as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Had the Labour Court while reviewing the original order dated 21.07.2017 considered the scheme of demerger and had observed anything on merit, in that case, it could have been said to be review on merit and same could not have been permitted as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. But in the instant case, though the aforesaid facts were brought to the notice of the Labour Court, at the time of review, the Labour Court only considered the fact that what was intended by Labour Court at the time of passing the order and ultimately replace the Laffans Petrochemical Ltd 's name with the name of present petitioner. 34. Further this Court on perusal of record has also considered the original award, the original award was contested by the present petitioner only and not by any representatives of the Laffans Petrochemicals Ltd. and therefore, any direction the Labour Court could have issued at the relevant point of time while passing the award dated 21.07.2017, the intention of Labour Court can be presumed to be against the present petitioner only. However, since in the operative portion, the name of Laffans Petrochemical Ltd. was mentioned, the Labour Court has by taking recourse to Rule 31 of Industrial Dispute (Bombay) Rules, just corrected that accidental slip of pen or omission by replacing the present petitioner instead of Laffans Petrochemical Ltd. 35. As far as the decisions relied upon by learned advocate Mr. Gandhi are concerned in case of Kapra Majdur Ekta Union (supra) though the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that there are two kinds of reviews, one on merit and other on procedural aspects as far as merit on review is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held the same to be impermissible. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that review on procedure to be maintainable. 36. In the instant case, on perusal of the order of the review which is under challenge, this Court has seen that the Labour Court has not discussed the merit of the matter but what has been discussed is the intention of the Labour Court while passing the earlier order 21.07.2017 and therefore, by taking into consideration Rule 31 of the Rules, the Labour Court just tried to correct the operative portion wherein by way of clerical error, instead of name of present petitioner, the name of Laffans Petrochemical Ltd. was mentioned. In this regard, the judgment in case of M/s. Tata Consulting Engineers V/s. Workmen cited by learned advocate Mr. Gandhi who relied upon the paragraph no. 20 is required to be considered. 37. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the aspects related to Rule 31 of the Rules, observed as under in paragraph no. 20:- “The challenge embodied in the second contention against the amendment of the award is more serious. It is urged that the amendment results in the inclusion of a flat increase of Rs. 150/- to each workman in the case of Draughtsman and Rs. 100/- to each workman in the case of other categories, a result wholly unwarranted, it is said, by the intent of the original award and, therefore, falling beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. In making the application of December 22, 1978, the Union invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under rule 31 of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957. Rule 31 provides: "31. The Labour Court, Tribunal or Arbitrator may correct any clerical mistake or error arising from an accidental slip or omission in any award it or he issues." The jurisdiction given to the Tribunal by Rule 31 is closely circumscribed. It is only a clerical mistake or error which can be corrected, and the clerical mistake or error must arise from an accidental slip or omission in the award. An accidental slip or omission implies that something was intended and contrary to that intention what should not have been included has been included or what should have been included has been omitted. It must be a mistake or error amenable to clerical correction only. It must not be a mistake or error which calls for rectification by modification of the conscious adjudication on the issues involved.” 38. The aforesaid observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court makes it clear that what is important is the intention of the Court if the intention of the Court was to include something which has been omitted, in that case, by resorting to Rule 31 of the Rules such accidental slip of pen or omission can be corrected by the Labour Court. The aforesaid observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court makes it clear that what is important is the intention of the Court if the intention of the Court was to include something which has been omitted, in that case, by resorting to Rule 31 of the Rules such accidental slip of pen or omission can be corrected by the Labour Court. In the instant case, since the order of review does not discuss anything on merit and in the operative portion what has been done by the Labour Court is that the Labour Court has replaced the Laffans Petrochemicals by present petitioner which according to this Court is nothing but moving a step furtherance in respect of the intention of Labour Court by rectifying the mistake committed by the Labour Court and therefore, the review can be said to be a review on procedure and the same is maintainable as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Kapra Majdur Ekta Union (supra). 39. One of the contention raised by learned advocate Mr. Gandhi was that during the course of discussion, the Labour Court stated that the name of the present petitioner is required to be added in the operative portion but while passing the order in the operative portion, the name of Laffans Petrochemical was replaced by the present petitioner and therefore, the Court was not consistent while passing the operative portion in the review application. 40. As far as the aforesaid contention is concerned, it is true that the Labour Court has before concluding paragraph, stated that the name of the present petitioner is required to be added. However, before final order, the Court has passed the order on 12.02.2015 whereby the present petitioner was impleaded as one of the party and therefore, the Labour Court has categorically observed that the name of Laffans Petrochemicals Ltd. is required to be replaced by the present petitioner and therefore, I do not see any inconsistency in findings and operative order passed by Labour Court. 41. In view of above observation, no interference is called for in the order passed by the Labour Court and the present petition is required to be dismissed and the same is dismissed.