MANAGER ATLANTA INFRASTRUCTURE LTD Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ petitions raise a common questions of fact and law and therefore are being taken up together for disposal. In both the writ petitions, the petitioner is also common and two orders passed on the same date have been challenged. However, for deciding the controversy, facts of S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3780/2005- Manager, Atlanta Infrastructure Ltd. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. are being referred.

(2.) IN the first writ petition namely, S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3780/2005, what is under challenge is the corrigendum issued by the appropriate Government on 9th May, 2005 vide which it has amended the name of the union in the notification earlier issued by it. IN second writ petition namely S. B. Civil writ petition No. 4155/2005 also under challenge is the corrigendum issued by the appropriate Government on 9th May, 2005 by which also an amendment was made in the notification of reference dated 14. 12. 1999. By this notification the appropriate Government had made a reference to learned labour court, Udaipur on the question of validity of retrenchment of certain employees of the petitioner from their service on 15. 7. 1999. IN both the notifications, the appropriate Government while making a reference under Section 10 of the INdustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act of 1947) mentioned the name of the union as Atlanta INfrastructure Shramik Sangh Bhathera House, Fatehpura, Udaipur while in first notification dated 13. 10. 1999 as originally issued, the appropriate Government had mentioned the name of the union as Atlanta INfrastructure Shramik Sangh, Bathera House, Fatehpura, Udaipur. By the impugned corrigendum issued in both the cases, however the appropriate Government sought to substitute the names of the aforesaid unions by Atlanta Shramik Sangh, Udaipur.

(3.) IN M/s. Dabur (Dr. S. K. Burman) Private Ltd, Deoghar, Bhiar vs. The Workmen reported in AIR 1968 SC 17, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealing with the case in which the appropriate Government subsequent to making of reference sought to substitute the word "ranchi" from Patna with regard to the labour court to which reference was made, an argument was raised that while reference was originally sought to be made to labour court, Patna in the first notification in the subsequent one, it was replaced by Ranchi and that the view of the High Court that it was a mere clerical error was not sustainable because the labour court, Patna to which reference was originally made had no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. The Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected the argument holding that this only reflected 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. " It was further held that "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.