ORDER : D.N. RAY, J. 1. Heard Mr. G.M. Joshi, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Kartik H. Bhatt, learned Advocate with Mr. Sushil R. Mishra, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, Mr. M.N.Marfatia, learned Advocate for the Respondent No.1 and Ms.Hetal Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State -Respondent. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: 2.1 The petitioner is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing invitro diagnostic kits and reagents. The present dispute originates from an industrial disagreement raised by Respondent No. 1, a recognized workers' union, after efforts to resolve differences during several conciliation meetings on a charter of demands proved unsuccessful. The said charter was initially submitted by Respondent No. 1 before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Conciliation Officer, Surat. 2.2 Upon failure to arrive at a settlement, Respondent No. 1, through a communication dated 25.03.2022, sought intervention from the said authority. Consequently, the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Surat, by letter dated 18.06.2022, referred the matter to the Industrial Tribunal, Surat, which came to be registered as Reference (I.T.) No. 15 of 2022. 2.3 The respondent union filed a claim statement raising 31 demands, which include: (1) a 30% upward revision in basic pay for the year 2020-2021 as well as 2021-22, (2) revision of residential rent allowance, (3) an increase in special allowances, (4) annual medical allowance, (5) revisions in leave structure, (6) an increase in the retirement age, (7) leave travel allowance, (8) shift duty allowances, (9) group insurance premium, (10) compensation for families of deceased workers, (11) festival advance, (12) food grain advance, (13) interest-free home loans, (14) provision of winter and monsoon wear, (15) filling of vacant posts, (16) special duty allowances, (17) education allowance, (18) transport or petrol cost compensation, (19) bonus provisions, (20) revision of gratuity, (21) coverage of medical expenses for duty-related injuries, (22) an increase in company-provided loans, (23) regularization of contract workers, (24) equal pay for outsourced employees, (25) equal pay and benefits for temporary workers, (26) allocation of a staff welfare fund, (27) benefits for differently-abled workers, (28) COVID-19 insurance, (29) canteen subsidies (30) a two-year settlement duration, and (31) a COVID-19 prevention scheme. Subsequently, the respondent union withdrew demands numbered 23 to 25, pertaining to regularization and parity in pay for outsourced and temporary employees. 2.4 The petitioner filed a detailed reply at Exh. 13, disputing the claims made by Respondent No. 1. Subsequently, the respondent union withdrew demands numbered 23 to 25, pertaining to regularization and parity in pay for outsourced and temporary employees. 2.4 The petitioner filed a detailed reply at Exh. 13, disputing the claims made by Respondent No. 1. In its response, it was contended that the demands lacked adequate justification and were untenable in the given context. It was further submitted that the demands were made by only 37 members of Respondent No. 1, out of a total workforce of 472 employees, whereas the remaining employees had accepted the settlement terms voluntarily, including salary increments. The petitioner also placed reliance on the discussions held during meetings on 17.10.2020, 18.12.2021, 25.01.2022, and 02.02.2022, where a 9.5% increment was proposed for the years 2021–22 and 2022–23. These offers, it is contended, were declined by the respondent union allegedly under external influence. 2.5 By way of an award dated 23.09.2024, the Industrial Tribunal, Surat, partly allowed the reference and directed the petitioner to implement a 12% increase in basic pay for the financial years 2020-21 and 2021-22. The award also provided for an additional special allowance of Rs. 3,000, to be disbursed in two equal parts of Rs. 1,500 each for the said years. 3. Aggrieved by the said award dated 23.09.2024, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the award and seeking the following reliefs: “(A) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction in the nature of certiorari, calling for the record and proceedings of Reference I.T. No. 15/2022 decided by the Industrial Tribunal, Surat, dated 23.09.2024, and upon examining the same, be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned award dated 23.09.2024 (Annexure-E). (B) Pending the admission, hearing, and final disposal of this Petition, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant ad-interim/interim relief by staying the implementation, execution, and operation of the order dated 23.09.2024 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Surat, in Reference I.T. No. 15/2022 (Annexure-E). (C) Grant such other and further relief/s as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice; (D) Be pleased to award cost of this petition;” 4. Mr. Gautam Joshi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner contended that the impugned award is arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to law. Mr. (C) Grant such other and further relief/s as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice; (D) Be pleased to award cost of this petition;” 4. Mr. Gautam Joshi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner contended that the impugned award is arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to law. Mr. Joshi submitted that the industrial disputes prescribed in the schedule annexed to the order dated 18.06.2022, at annexure A–Page 12 of the paper-book would reveal that it pertains to a dispute between the Managing Truestee, Shri Labdhi Vikram Rajya Shasuri Swarji Jain Tirth and its workmen, whereas, the present reference concerns the petitioner and the respondent No.1-Union. According to Mr. Joshi, the glaring discrepancy as noted hereinabove points to utter non-application of mind on the part of the Industrial Tribunal and rendered the reference and consequently the award, ab intio void, illegal and without jurisdiction. 4.1 Mr.Joshi further submitted that 472 workmen are employed by the petitioner-Company and for industries employing less than 500 workmen, the jurisdiction vests in the Labour Commissioner Ahmedabad (presently Gandhinagar) and therefore, the present reference is also illegal on the said count. 4.2 Upon being questioned on the merits of the reference, Mr. Joshi submitted that it will be seen from the reasoning and conclusion of the Industrial Tribunal at Pages 154 to 160 of the paper-book that the Tribunal has errred on two counts namely to award a 12% increase instead of the 9.5% offered by the Management and despite concluding that a sum of Rs. 7500/- as additional allowances for the first year under reference and Rs. 9,000/- for the second year under reference, the order reads as Rs. 9,000/- for both the years under reference. 5. Defending the Award, Mr. M.N. Marfatia, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.1 pointed out to Page No. 142 of the paper-book wherein, the Industrial Tribunal has held as under :- “The first party Company has submitted written arguments vide Exhibit-67. Wherein, in the beginning itself, they have raised an important contention that, in the reference made in the case, it appears to be a typographical error in the schedule and in the order, produced at Exhibit-1 and Exhibit-2, by the Officer who made the reference i.e., the Deputy Labour Commissioner. Wherein, in the beginning itself, they have raised an important contention that, in the reference made in the case, it appears to be a typographical error in the schedule and in the order, produced at Exhibit-1 and Exhibit-2, by the Officer who made the reference i.e., the Deputy Labour Commissioner. It is clearly evident that a typographical error occurred only in the heading while writing the name of the first party organisation. Merely because of this, the demands of the workmen of this organisation do not become illegal. When the Court/Tribunal has to adjudicate, it must consider the entire case record and its essence. The entire reference does not become illegal merely due to a typing error in a few words. The letter which is received at Exhibit-1 along with the order at Exhibit-2 contains the correct names of the parties, and the notification is properly published therein. It is clearly evident that only in the order dated 18/06/2022, issued by Shri M.C. Kariya, Deputy Labour Commissioner, Surat, he has made an error in writing the name, and the names, addresses, demands, etc., of the workmen clearly appear to belong to this very Arkey Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, the entire reference cannot be set aside based on the defence taken in this argument. Further, as the conciliation was not made during the meetings held between the parties of the present case regarding the Charter of Demand, the second party union submitted the said Charter of Demand before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and the Conciliation Officer, Surat. As conciliation was not possible in that Charter of Demand, the second party union sent a letter dated 25/07/2022 to the Assistant Labour Commissioner and the Conciliation Officer, Surat, requesting them for intervention. It has been stated that, the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Surat, has enclosed the present reference for submission vide Exhibit-1 on 18/06/2022. Moreover, the order from the office of the Deputy Labour Commissioner dated 18/06/2022 at Exhibit-2, the industrial dispute linked with the matters specified in the schedule attached with the letter, is between the Managing Trustee, Shri Labhdhi Vikram Rajya Shasuri Swarji Jain Tirth, at (Sarvodaya Sankul), beside Vibhuti Petrol Pump, near Chalthan Flyover Bridge, National Highway No. 8, Village- Baleshwar, Taluka-Palsana, Dist. Surat, and its workmen. Whereas, the present reference is between Arkey Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. and Surat District Employees Union. Surat, and its workmen. Whereas, the present reference is between Arkey Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. and Surat District Employees Union. In all the said facts, the order passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Surat, is wrong ab initio, illegal, unreasonable, without jurisdiction, contrary to the record, invalid, and incompetent, and the said order is bad since inception. Moreover, in the notices issued vide Exhibit-4 and Exhibit-5, the company's name is Arkey Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. In all these facts, the original Terms of Reference and the notice are barred by the rules of misjoinder of parties and non-joinder of parties. The Organisation submitted a reply against the statement of demands made by the union. In Para-3 thereof, it is stated that “Total 472 workmen/employees are working in the First Party Company. Out of these, only 37 workmen/employees are stated to be members of the second party union.” In this regard, the union has raised no objections or opposition, nor has it asked any questions to the Organisation’s witnesses during cross-examination regarding the same. Whereas, as per the notification dated 21/04/1982 of the Government, the authority to issue orders on specific matters mentioned in the Second and Third Schedules for all industries employing less than 500 workers across the State of Gujarat has been conferred upon the Labour Commissioner, Ahmedabad (currently the Labour Commissioner, Gandhinagar). Whereas, the present Terms of Reference have been referred by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Surat. In all these facts, if the order of reference has not been issued by an authorised officer/authority, then such a reference is considered illegal, invalid, or incompetent. The concerned Officer can exercise such powers strictly within the limits of those delegated powers and subject to the conditions under which these powers have been entrusted to the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Surat, under Section 39 of the I.D. Act, 1947. The union had raised an industrial dispute by submitting a Charter of Demands before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Conciliation Officer. As conciliation between the parties was not possible there, the union sent a letter dated 25/03/2022 to the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Conciliation Officer requesting for intervention. Along with this letter, the union provided a statement for verification of numbers of the members. In serial number 4 of that statement, the number of workmen affected by the dispute was shown as 72 (as of 2020).” 6. Along with this letter, the union provided a statement for verification of numbers of the members. In serial number 4 of that statement, the number of workmen affected by the dispute was shown as 72 (as of 2020).” 6. Thus, it is seen that the objections raised by Mr. Joshi are hyper-technical and unfounded and that the Industrial Court entered into the adjudication being totally alive to the controversy at hand. Merely because the dispute was wrongly captioned as “Managing Truestee, Shri Labdhi Vikram Rajya Shasuri Swarji Jain Tirth and its workmen” would not ipso facto render the reference or the Award incompetent and illegal. 7. It is further seen as far as the objections of Mr. Joshi to the merits of the award are concerned, this Court is of the opinion that where the workmen had demanded an increase of 30% in pay and the management had offered an increase of 9.5% on its own volition, it cannot be held that the award of 12% instead of 9.5% as offered by the petitioner is a decision which needs any interference by this Court. Suffice it to say that the very fact that the losses of the petitioner-Company had substantially come down is indicative of the performance of its workforce which is responsible for putting the company into a track of recovery which needed to be suitably rewarded by an increase in pay of 12% as held by the Industrial Tribunal instead of 9.5% as voluntarily offered by the petitioner itself. As far as the difference between the figure of Rs.7,500/- for the first year towards allowances and the actual award of Rs.9,000/- for the first year, this Court is of the opinion that not only is the discrepancy extremely minor, but at the same time capable of being reconciled by the Executing Court. Hence, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned award. The reference to the recent decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of VVF Ltd. Employees Union Vs. VVF India Ltd. And Another reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 534 , by Mr. Hence, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned award. The reference to the recent decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of VVF Ltd. Employees Union Vs. VVF India Ltd. And Another reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 534 , by Mr. Joshi, is of no avail in the facts and circumstances of the present case, inasmuch as, this Court does not propose to reappreciate the evidence and reach its own conclusion, an error that was corrected by the Hon’ble Apex Court in VVF (Supra), in the facts of the said case. 8. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs.