ABDUL RAHIMAN KUNJU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main question to be decided in this case is whether appropriate Government, after passing an order of reference, could subsequently amend or modify the same. On the facts of this petition, 4th respondent was employed in the petitioner factory. For misconducts proved in an enquiry, 4th respondent was dismissed by order dated 18.7.1989. The matter was taken up by the Union. The appropriate Government referred the matter to the Industrial Tribunal, Quilon. The issue referred for adjudication was:

(2.) Petitioner management questions Ext. P7 modified reference order on the ground that Ext. P3 reference order and Ext. P7 order modifying the reference are entirely different matter. It is contended that denial of employment and dismissal from service are entirely different and Ext. P7 modifies Ext. P3 order of reference as petitioner was able to convince the Tribunal that there is no denial of employment but only dismissal from service. It is also contended by the petitioner that if the first reference is not correct perhaps Government may issue fresh independent reference order but the existing reference order cannot be modified as an order like Ext. P7 by way of amendment of the original reference order actually nullifies the original reference order Ext. P3.

(3.) It is submitted by the petitioner that modification of me reference order is not possible as held by this court in F.A.C.T. Employees' Association v. F.A.C.T. ( 1976 KLT 474 ) In that case, it was held that once a reference order is passed there should be an award of the Tribunal. In the above case, while confirming the ex parte award of the Tribunal, it was observed that once a reference is made an award should be passed. There was no finding in the above judgment that once a reference is issued it cannot be modified or amended at all by the Government.