RAM BABU SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, a challenge has been made to the order dt. 07.12.2011 whereby the Labour Court dismissed the application moved by the petitioner for correction of his father's name. It is stated that after passing the award by the Labour Court, a writ petition as filed. The said writ petition was dismissed, however, in the appeal, a liberty was given to the petitioner to seek amendment in father's name by moving an application before the Labour Court. The petitioner accordingly moved an application for correction in his father's name, however, the same has been declined. It is stated that petitioner's father's name was wrongly mentioned, thus necessary correction in that regard was asked but ignoring the direction of Hon'ble Division Bench, the same has been denied. Accordingly, a prayer is made to set aside the impugned order of the Labour Court.

(2.) I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel and perused the record.

(3.) PERUSAL of the order quoted above reveals that petitioner could have been punished for misrepresentation in filing a false affidavit before the High Court however, without passing order to that effect writ petition was dismissed. Before the Division Bench, an application for correction of petitioner's father's name was made and the same was decided with liberty to petitioner to make an application before the Labour Court. It seems that order dt. 01st May, 2006 was not brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Division Bench. In any case, the Labour Court not only considered two orders passed by this Court, i.e., by the learned Single Judge and Division Bench but further taken note of his own jurisdiction. It is a settled law that Labour Court can correct only clerical or typographical mistakes. Since petitioner's father's name was mentioned as Om Prakash throughout, that too, in the reference made by the appropriate government, the Labour Court had no authority to correct the reference, as jurisdiction in that regard remains with appropriate government only. Since it was not found to be a clerical or typographical mistake, the Labour Court rightly came to conclusion that correction in the award cannot be made. For the aforesaid purpose, a reference of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (for short "the Act of 1947") would be relevant, thus is quoted hereunder for ready reference: