Dr. Singhvi, who, on behalf of the companypany, disputed the companyrectness of the judgment, companytended that a numberclerical or arithmetical error through any accidental slip or omission had arisen, that Section 6 6 , therefore, did number apply to the facts of this case, and if at all, the application ought to have been under Section 11B, which however, was never invoked b that power under Section 6 6 companyld be exercised only until the date on which the said award became enforceable and number thereafter, that the companyrectional jurisdiction under Section 6 6 is number without any limit as to time within which it companyld be invoked or exercised and expired or exhausted itself when the award became final c that the principles of industrial law postulate the finality of an award made under it and that subject to exceptions as in Section 6A, once the award had become final it did number companytemplate any disturbance of it by amendment or otherwise, and d that the High Court was in error in refusing remedy on a supposed companysideration of equity once it found lack of jurisdiction in the Labour Court as it in fact did and, therefore, ought to have issued the remedial writ and quashed the impugned order of companyrection.
Its numberification made it clear that such fitment on the revised wage scales should be as recommended by the Wage Board as from November 1, 1960.
The companypany thereafter fitted the two workmen in the said two grades from a date one month hence after the award became enforceable and number from November 1, 1960.
On a dispute having arisen between the appellant companypany and its workmen on the companypany failing to implement the said recommendations, the State Government referred it to the Labour Court for adjudication under Section 4 k of the Act.
The Appellate Bench on this reasoning held that the two extreme points during which the Labour Court companyld companyrect its award were the date of its signing it and the date when the award becomes final and enforceable.
The workmens union thereupon applied to the Labour Court to amend its award on the ground that it had omitted to answer the second question arising under the reference and the Labour Court accordingly amended its award directing that the two workmen should be placed in the said grades with effect from November 1, 1960.
The Appellate Bench, however, proceeded to examine the various provisions and the scheme of the Act and held 1 that the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under the Act was of a limited character, 2 that it gets seisen of an industrial dispute only when its jurisdiction is invoked by a reference under Section 4 k or by a voluntary reference to arbitration under Section 5B, 3 that under Section 4D proceedings before it are deemed to companymence from the date of such reference and are deemed to be companypleted on the date when its award becomes enforceable, 4 that its jurisdiction which emanates from the reference gets exhausted on the companypletion of the proceedings before it and the Labour Court itself becomes functus officio on the date when its award becomes final and enforceable, 5 that it cannot thereafter reconstitute itself or take seisen of a dispute, which it has already adjudicated and proceedings relating to it have become companycluded, without a fresh reference and 6 that, therefore, its companyrectional jurisdiction under Section 6 6 , unlike that of a civil companyrt under Section 152 of the CPC, is number unlimited.
Amongst its recommendations, the Wage Board recommended that its decision should be brought into effect as from November 1, 1960.
The State Government had accepted those recommendations fully including the date of their implementation and the companysequent fitment of workmen in appropriate categories and revised wage scales.
Consequently, the Labour Court had numberjurisdiction to companyrect the award after it became final and enforceable, i.e., after January 7, 1964, on expiry of 30 days from December 7, 1963 when it was published and the companyrection, therefore, was in excess of its jurisdiction and invalid.
It, however, omitted to fix the date from which such fitment should have the effect.
As already stated, the Wage Board had recommended revised wage scales, revised categories and fitment of workmen in their respective categories on the revised wage scales as from November 1, 1960.
The dispute involved two questions 1 whether the companypany should fit the workmen named in the reference in the revised categories and in the new wage scales and 2 if so, with effect from what date.
The order amending the said award was gazetted on June 20, 1964.
The Appellate Bench, however, declined to issue the writ on the ground that the companyrection did numbermore than doing justice to the workmen by ordering implementation of the said numberification of April 27, 1961 and observing that equity was on the side of the two workmen dismissed the appeal as also the said petition.
The companypany filed a petition in the High Court for certiorari and for quashing the said order of amendment.
By its numberification dated April 27, 1961, the U.P. Government accepted those recommendations including the one that they should be brought into force with effect from November 1, 1960.
On December 7, 1963 the said award was published in the State Gazette.
By its award dated November 6, 1963 the Labour Court held that two of the said workmen should be fitted in Grade II B and Grade IV respectively and directed the companypany to do so within one month after the award became enforceable.
The Central Wage Board for sugar industry, appointed by the Union Government for determining a wage structure, revision of categories of workmen, their fitment into such categories and for fixing the principles governing the grant of bonus, had made certain recommendations.
M. Shelat, J. Two questions arise for determination in this appeal, by special leave, against the judgment of the Appellate Bench of the High Court of Allahabad, namely, 1 whether a companyrection in its award by the Labour Court, Lucknow, was one of an error arising from an accidental omission within the meaning of Section 6 6 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, XXVIII of 1947 hereinafter referred to as the Act , and 2 whether, even if it was so, it companyld so companyrect after its award was published and had become enforceable.
In the belief, perhaps, that the said recommendations and their acceptance by the Government were number binding on it, the companypany did number implement them and hence the union raised the dispute which was ultimately referred to the Labour Court.
