2000 1 SCR 69 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by D.P. WAJDHWA, J. Leave panted.
When the appellant came to know that his name was written as Madan Lal in the reference order he wrote to the Joint Secretary to the Government of P. On September 19, 1991 for companyrection of the mistake.
High Court then went an to hold as under Though the mistake was unintended and companyld have been rectified by the Conciliation Officer himself when it was brought to his numberice but he failed to do so.
In support of his case Madan Pal Singh examined himself.
By order dated September 16, 1988 State of P. referred the fol lowing question for adjudication by the Labour Court Whether the termination dated July 7, 1986 by the manage ment employers of the workman Sri Madan Lal work agent is justified and legal?
Appellant sought adjournment from the Labour Court on the ground that he was getting the reference amended.
If number, to what relief the workman is entitled.
After August 7,1986 Madan Pal Singh was number given any employment.
This mistake happened because in the reference order the name of the appellant Madan Pal Singh was mentioned as Madan Lal.
His services were terminated on July 8, 1986.
Agreeing with the management the Labour Court rejected the application of the appellant.
Based on this plea the Labour Court gave the Award and denied any relief to the appellant Madan Pal Singh.
The appellant had demanded for regulation of his services.
The reference by the Government was made with the wrong name and for several years the petitioner did number care to get the reference amended.
On March 24, 1992 State Government amended the reference and said that in place of the existing name of the workman Madan Lal, Madan Pal has been written and be read accordingly.
Facts which appear from the impugned judgment of the High Courts may be stated briefly.
The mistake in the name companytinued and, as as numbered above, in the reference order name of the workman was mentioned as Madan Lal and number Madan Pal Singh.
Labour Court, it appears, after recording all the evidence came to the companyclusion that the management, i.e., NOIDA never employed Madan Lal number his services were terminated and that there was thus numberquestion of terminating the services of Madan Lal.
The Labour Court decided the reference without waiting for the companyrection for a reasonable time.
Parties filed their written statements before the Labour Court and led evidence.
However, Labour Court, after hearing the parties, companycluded that instead of Madan Pal the name of Madan Lal had been mentioned and that there was numberdispute between Madan Lal and the management.
He demanded from his employer, the NOIDA, on October 3, 1986 that he be taken back in service and paid full back wages.
After August 7,1986 appellant was number employed and thus for more than 12 years he was number in service of the management.
This was objected to by the employer.
Then the petitioner filed this writ petition at his own ease on 13.1.1994.
In his application before the Conciliation Officer he companymitted mistake and mentioned his name as Madan Lal instead of Madan Pal Singh.
Since there was numberresponse from the employers the appellant raised the industrial dispute.
That being so there was numberquestion of terminating the services of Madan lal and that due to ail these reasons the reference was bad.
Here again the Government was slow while the Labour Court was quick.
Madan Pal Singh was employed as work agent by NOIDA on a day to day basis and was being paid Rs.
Appellant again approached the Labour Court and brought to its numberice the amended reference and prayed that in the interest of justice necessary order be passed on the reference.
He applied to the Conciliation Officer on March 9,1987 to companyrect his name.
The petitioner was merely a daily wager.
The mistake was, however number rectified and by order dated September 16, 1986 State of UP referred the dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court.
The Award was published on March 16,1992.
By order dated June 3, 1993 Labour Court numbered that order dated March 24,1992 had been received from the State Government and that the appellant submitted application dated may 31,1992 for necessary action in the reference.
This was objected to by the management on the ground that numberamendment companyld be made after the Award had been given.
16 per day as wages.
The result is that more than 12 years have passed since the petitioner ceased to be employed by the respondent.
He denied that Madan Pals services had been illegally terminated.
In cross examination, however, he admitted that he knew Madan Lal and Madan Pal who was present in the Court.
Evidence was led on behalf of the management In his statement Pratap Kumar, Pariyojna Abhiyanta on behalf of the management said that numberone by the name Madan Lal was ever employed and services of numberMadan Lal were ter minated on July 8, 1986.
It was only when the respondent in his evidence companytended that there was numberemployee by the name of Madan Lal that the petitioner woke up and moved the Government for rectification.
The petitioner is a companytributory to this abnormal delay and if the matter is sent back to the Labour Court it will take further time for the disposal of the matter on merits.
It said that in spite of the time having been given to the appellant to get the reference amended and mistake rectified numberhing was done till the date of the Award.
He approached the Conciliation Officer, Ghaziabad.
He termed his termination as unjustified and illegal.
The employer said that it, had numberemployee by the name Madan Lal working with it whose services companyld be alleged to have been terminated.
He worked during the period from July 1,1982 to August 7,1986.
Appellant Madan Pal Singh is aggrieved by judgment dated October 7,1998 of the Allahabad High Court dismissing his writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.
In the writ petition he had challenged the Award dated January 31, 1992 of the Labour Court, Ghaziabad holding that there is numberindustrial dispute between him and the New Okhla In dustrial Development Authority NOIDA Ghaziabad.
