# DABUR (DR. S. K. BURMAN) PRIVATE LTD. DE<JG. . B BAR, BIBAR v. THE WORKMEN

- **Citation:** [1968] 1 S.C.R. 61
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1967-07-26
- **Bench:** J. M. Shelat, V. Bhargava, C. A. Vaidialingam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/dabur-dr-s-k-burman-private-ltd-de-jg-b-bar-bibar-v-the-workmen-4150
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Industrial Dispute-Order of Reference-Clerical error, if con
be corrected.
The Government referred an industrial dispute
to Labour
Court, Patna. and subsequently issued an order by way of corrigenC dum substituting "Ranchi" for "Patna". In proceedings before the
Labour Court, Ranchi, objection was raised that once having made
the reference to the Labour Court, Patna, the Government was not
comp~tent to . cancel or withdraw that reference, so the Labour
Court, Ranchi had no jurisdiction. The Labour Court, Rancm rejected the objection. The High Court also rejected this contention. In
appeal to this Court :
D
HELD : The alteration in the order of reference was a mere correction of a clerical error. because, lzy mistake, Patna had been
mentioned in place of Ranchi in the first notification and the second
notification merely corrected that mistake. Such a clericar error can
always be corrected and such a correction does not amount either
to the withdrawal of the reference from, or cancellation of the reference fu the Labour Court, Patna. [63F-H]
E
CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2568 of
F
1966.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
March 23, 1966 of the Patna High Court in Misc. Judicial Case
No. 118 of 1963.
H. R. Gokhale and Sukumar Ghose, for the appellant.
M. K. Ramamurthi, Shymala Pappu and Vineet Kumar, for
the respondents.

## Text

61
A
DABUR (DR. S. K. BURMAN) PRIVATE LTD. DE<JG.
. B
BAR, BIBAR
v.
THE WORKMEN
July 26, 1967
(J. M. SHELAT, V. BHARGAVA AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.)
Industrial Dispute-Order of Reference-Clerical error, if con
be corrected.
The Government referred an industrial dispute
to Labour
Court, Patna. and subsequently issued an order by way of corrigenC dum substituting "Ranchi" for "Patna". In proceedings before the
Labour Court, Ranchi, objection was raised that once having made
the reference to the Labour Court, Patna, the Government was not
comp~tent to . cancel or withdraw that reference, so the Labour
Court, Ranchi had no jurisdiction. The Labour Court, Rancm rejected the objection. The High Court also rejected this contention. In
appeal to this Court :
D
HELD : The alteration in the order of reference was a mere correction of a clerical error. because, lzy mistake, Patna had been
mentioned in place of Ranchi in the first notification and the second
notification merely corrected that mistake. Such a clericar error can
always be corrected and such a correction does not amount either
to the withdrawal of the reference from, or cancellation of the reference fu the Labour Court, Patna. [63F-H]
E
CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2568 of
F
1966.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
March 23, 1966 of the Patna High Court in Misc. Judicial Case
No. 118 of 1963.
H. R. Gokhale and Sukumar Ghose, for the appellant.
M. K. Ramamurthi, Shymala Pappu and Vineet Kumar, for
the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Bharpva, J.-Tlie Government of Bihar, by an Order dated
G 14th June, 1961, referred an industrial dispute under section 10(1)
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) to the Labour
Court, Patna, wherein the following two issues were referred:-
"(!) Whether the discharge of the following forty work·
men was proper? If not, whether they are entitl~
to reinstatement and /.or any other relief?
B
(2) Whether the above-mentioned w~rkmen are entitled
to be made permanent?"
Subsequently, the Government issued an Order by way of corrigendum on the 19th July, 1961, substituting "Ranchi" for "Pata"
62
SUPUE?dE l'OlTf~'l' REPOJ;t'J't;
(1968] l S.O.R.
in the original order of reference dated 14th June, 1961. The A
effect of this corrigendum was that the reference of the dispute,
instead of being made to the Labour Court, Patna, came before
the Labour Court, Ranchi.
In
the proceedings before that
Court, the principal objection! that was raised
was that the
Government, having once made a reference to the Labour Court,
Patna, was not competent to cancel or withdraw that reference B
and could not make a competent reference of the same industrial
dispute lo the Labour Court. Ranchi, so that the latter Court
had no jurisdiction to deal with the reference. The case before
the Labour Court was also contested on various other grounds,
hul we need only mention those grounds which have been urged
before us in this appeal. While the Libour Court was dealing
with the reference, adjournments were sought on behalf of the C
appellant, M/ s. Dabur (Dr. S. K. Burman) Private Ltd. After
decision of some preliminary . points by the order dated 18th
August, 1962, the case was fixed for hearing on 19th November.
1962. On that date, the management again prayed for an adjournment on the ground that their local Manager, Sri Basant Jha,
had been lying ill for some time past and it was not possible for D
the management to prosecute their case with diligence. The
Labour Court rejected this application and, thereupon, proceeded
to hear the reference ex parte.
The Labour Court held that the reference to it was competent and it had jurisdiction to deal with it, even though, by the B
original order of reference. the Government had purported to
refer the dispute to the Labour Court, Patna. On the first issue
referred, the Court recorded the finding that the 40 workmen,
who had been discharged, were not casual workers and that their
discharge by the employers on the. basis
that they were casual
workers was not proper. It was further held that the discharge
was ma/a fide inasmuch as the purpose of the discharge was to F
avoid the liability of treating these workmen as permanent employees by preventing them from completing 240 days of work
in a year.
There was the further finding that the workmen were
all discharged from service as they had demanded increase in
rates of wages and had also claimed that Sundays should be made
paid holidays. Against this award, the appellant filed a petition G
under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Patna
requesting that Court to quash the award. That Court upheld
the award and dismissed the writ petition. Consequently, the
appellant lias come up to this Court by special leave against that
judgment of the High Court.
Mr. Gokhalc. aprearing on behalf of tile appellant, emphati- B
cally urged that both the Labour Court, Ranchi as well as the
P1itm1 High Court w.:re wrong in holding that the reference lo the
Labour Court, Ranchi, was competent even after the reference
DABUR L1'D. t'. WORKKEN (Bliargava, J.)
63
A had originally been made to the Labour Court, Patna. He relied
on the· principle laid down by this Court that once the Government has made a reference to a particular Labour Court, it is thai
Labour Court which becomes seized of that industrial dispute
and, thereafter, the Government has no jurisdiction either to
withdraw that reference or cancel it. In this case, however, as is
B clear from the judgment of the High Court, the question that
arose was entirely different. The High Court has clearly held
that this was not a case where the Government either withdrew
or cancelled the reference to the Labour Court, Patna. The High
Court has held that, from the facts stated by the appellant in the
writ petition filed in that Court, it appeared that the alteration
0 in the order of reference was a mere correction of a clerical error.
because, by mistake, Patna had been mentioned in place of
Ranchi in the first notification, The second notification merely
corrected that mistake. Mr. Gokhale wanted us to hold that the
High- Court was wrong in its view that the Government had
niere!y made correction of a clerical error and th~t we should
D accept the submission on behalf of the appellant that, in fact; the
State .Government had first intentionally referred the dispute to
the Labour Court. Patna. and issued the corrigendum only when
the Government decided that the reference should go to the
Labour Court, Ranchi and not Labour Court, Patna, because
Labour Court, Patna had no jurisdiction to entertain the reference.
We are unable to accept this submission made on behalf. of the
B appellant. The High Court drew an inference from the facts
stated in the writ petition filed by the appellant itself that this
was a case of mere correction of a clerical error. This finding
recorded by the High Court on the basis of the facts given in the
writ petition is not now open to challenge in this special appeal,
particularly because even a copy of that writ petition has not been
r made a part of the paper-book before us.
We cannot see how
any objection can be taken to the competence of the State Government to make a correction of a mere clerical error.
The finding
that it was a clerical error means that the Government in fact
intended to make the reference to the Labour Court, Ranchi; but
while actually scribing the order of reference, a mistake was committed by the writer of putting down Patna instead of Ranchi.
G Such a clerical error can always be corrected and such a correction does not amount either to the withdrawal of the reference
from. or cancellation of the reference to, the Labour Court, Patna.
The High Court was, therefore, right in rejecting this contention
on behalf of the appellant.
B:
On merits, Mr. Gokhale wanted to urge only two points before us. One was that the Labour Court committed a manifest
error of law apparent on the face of the record in holding that
the workmen
concerned were not casual
workers. The iudg·
ment of the High Court, however, shows that before that Court
SUl'Rt:ME COURT RBPORTS
[1968] 1 8.0.L
it was nowhere urged or argued that any such error of law appa· .&
rent on the face of the record had been committed by the Labour
Court. What was urged before the High Court was that, even
on the ex parte evidence on record, the Labour Court ought to
have held that the workmen were mere casual labourers. The
High Court was right in holding that this point urLed on behalf
of the appellant essentially raised a question'-'Oflact oruy and that B
Court, in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution,
could not interfere on such ;t question of fact.
Since no submission was made before the High Court that the finding of the
Labour Court that the workmen are not casual labourers suffers
from any manifest error of law apparent on the faee of the record,
the appellant is not entitled to raise this point in this special 0
appeal before us.
On the findiQg actually recorded by the Labour
Court and upheld by the High Court, the order of the Labour
Court directing reinstatement of these workmen is fully jus~ed.
so that the order made by the Labour Court, insofar as it is
against the .interests of the appellant, is correct and must be upheld. In view of this position, it is unnecessary to go into the
question whether the Labour Court was or was not right in re- D
cording the finding as to ma/a {ides.
The only other point urged was that the Labour Court should
not have proceeded ex parte when material was placed before
that Court on behalf of the appellant to show
that its local
Manager, Sri Basant Jha, was in fact lyin.g ill. The question 1
whether an adjournment should or should not have been granted
on this ground was in the discretion of the Labour Court. Even
the order by which the Labour Court rejected that application
for adjournment is not before us and, consequently, it cannot be
held that the Labour Court committed any such error in rejecting
the 11pplication for adjournment and proceeding ex parte as would
justify interference by this Court.
'I'
The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs;
Y.P.
Appeal dismissed.