JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. Petitioner has approached this Court by way of present petition against the dismissal of her claim in Reference No. 268 of 2010 titled Shanti Devi vs. State of HP and others, whereby Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Dharamshala, H.P., vide impugned order dated 3.8.2013, has rejected the claim of petitioner on the ground that reference received from the appropriate Government by Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal was only against the Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division, Karsog, District Mandi whereas Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division, Karsog had never engaged the petitioner and, therefore, there was no question of termination of her services by the said Officer and thus no relationship of employer and employee exists between the parties to the industrial dispute and, thus, petitioner was not entitled for any relief. 2. Undisputedly, petitioner preferred application (Annexure P-5) under Section 2-A of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 for her reinstatement with full back wages since 1st April, 2007 to the Labour Officer-cum-Conciliation Authority, Mandi District Mandi. In the said application, respondent is the Divisional Forest Officer, Working Plan Division, Karsog at Sundernagar, District Mandi. On the basis of this application, reference was made by the appropriate Government to the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, vide notification dated 20th October, 2010. 3. No doubt, in said reference there is reference of employer as Divisional Forest Officer, Karsog District Mandi. However, it is also matter of record that in the statement of claim preferred by petitioner under Section 25(f)(g)(h) of Industrial Dispute Act (Annexure P-8), petitioner had arrayed three respondents i.e. State of HP through Secretary Forest Shimla; Divisional Forest Officer, Working Plan Division, Karsog at Sundernagar, District Mandi; and Divisional Forest Officer, Karsog, District Mandi. 4. To the statement of claim, reply was preferred by all three respondents jointly wherein engagement of petitioner by respondent No.2 Divisional Forest Officer, Working Plan Division Karsog at Sundernagar has not been disputed rather admitted. 5. After completion of pleadings, evidence was led by both parties in support of their respective stands in the claim petition and in response thereto. The evidence has been referred by Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal in its final order. However, instead of returning the findings on merit, on the basis of evidence on record, he chose to declare the claim not maintainable by stating that there was no relationship of employer and workman between the respondents and petitioner. 6. The evidence has been referred by Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal in its final order. However, instead of returning the findings on merit, on the basis of evidence on record, he chose to declare the claim not maintainable by stating that there was no relationship of employer and workman between the respondents and petitioner. 6. From the record, which was available before the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, it is apparent that petitioner was engaged by Divisional Forest Officer, Working Plan Division, Karsog at Sundernagar, District Mandi and evidence produced by respondents is also confirming the said fact. Therefore, parties were well aware about the subject matter of dispute and also about relationship between respondent No.2 and petitioner as employer and workman and for that reason only, no such objection was ever raised by respondents before the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal. However, at the time of deciding the reference, perhaps for adopting shortcut to dispose of the reference petition, the Presiding Judge of Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal had evolved an entirely new ground, to answer the reference negatively against the petitioner/workman and ill intention of the Presiding Judge is evident from the memo of parties mentioned in the impugned order where he has reflected only one respondent i.e. Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division, Karsog, District Mandi HP whereas the said respondent was respondent No.3 and respondent No.1 was State of HP and respondent No.2 was Divisional Forest Officer, Working Plan Division, Karsog at Sundernagar, District Mandi. 7. Admittedly, petitioner was engaged by Divisional Forest Officer, Working Plan Division, Karsog at Sundernagar, District Mandi and therefore, mention of Divisional Forest Officer, Karsog, District Mandi in the reference by the appropriate Government is not completely incorrect but may be construed as an incomplete detail of employer because Divisional Forest Officer, Working Plan Division was also Divisional Forest Officer, Karsog but at Sundernagar and in the claim petition, preferred by petitioner and response filed thereto, details of employer have been given and therefore, it was incumbent upon the Labour Court to take notice of details of employer mentioned in claim petition and in response thereto and to decide the matter on merits. 8. It appears that at the time of making the reference, ministerial mistake has been committed by authority acting on behalf of the Government at the time of referring the matter to the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal. 8. It appears that at the time of making the reference, ministerial mistake has been committed by authority acting on behalf of the Government at the time of referring the matter to the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal. But no such objection was ever put-forth by respondents to reject the reference petition, rather, in view of admitted facts, respondents have contested the claim of workman/petitioner on merit and both parties have led the evidence to that effect which indicates that parties are in agreement with respect to initial engagement of petitioner by Divisional Forest Officer, Working Plan Division, Karsog at Sundernagar, District Mandi. 9. In aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find that the Presiding Judge of Labour Court has committed a material irregularity and illegality amounting to perversity and therefore, impugned order passed by Labour Court is set aside and matter is remitted back to the Labour Court for deciding afresh on the basis of pleadings and evidence already on record and claim petition registered as Reference No.268 of 2010 is restored to its original position and parties are directed to appear before concerned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal on 1st August, 2023. Whereafter, by giving opportunity of hearing, reference petition shall be disposed of by the Labour Court as expeditiously as possible preferably on or before 30th September, 2023. The petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms along with all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any