Industrial Disputes Act | Govt Can't Amend Industrial Dispute Reference Without Fresh Demand: HP High Court
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that in the absence of any demand or dispute regarding termination the government does not have any authority to refer the issue to the Labour Court.The Court clarified that such termination could only be taken up through a fresh industrial dispute or a direct application under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act.Justice Ajay Mohan Goel...
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that in the absence of any demand or dispute regarding termination the government does not have any authority to refer the issue to the Labour Court.
The Court clarified that such termination could only be taken up through a fresh industrial dispute or a direct application under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “The Appropriate Government in the absence of being seized with the issue of termination… had no authority to make a reference of this issue… The termination… was a fresh cause of action… The appropriate Government suo motu had no authority to amend the Reference earlier made…”
The management of Auckland House School approached the High Court challenging a corrigendum, issued by the Joint Labour Commissioner. The corrigendum modified an earlier reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by including issues regarding the termination of workers' services, an issue that was not part of the original dispute.
Along with this, the petitioners also sought direction to quash the Labour Court's order which had dismissed their objection to the corrigendum.
The petitioner contended that State had no authority to amend the reference through the corrigendum after it was already made. they submitted that the corrigendum was based on subsequent events that were never part of the original demand notice or dispute.
In response, the State and the workers union contended that the government has the power to amend orders under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act.
The Court noted that in the original reference made the issue was not related to the termination of the services of the employees concerned.
Thus, the Court allowed the petition and held that as no demand regarding termination had been raised by the workers, the Government had no jurisdiction to include that issue.
Case Name: Auckland House School & others v/s State of Himachal Pradesh & others
Case No.: CWP No. 4221 of 2022
Date of Decision: 14.10.2025
For the petitioners: Mr.Naresh. K.Sood, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Aman Sood, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr.Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.1-State.
Ms.Shikha Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Respondents No.3 and 4 ex parte.