Dr. Singhvi, who, on behalf of the company, disputed the correctness of the judgment, contended that (a) no clerical or arithmetical error through any accidental slip or omission had arisen, that section 6(6), therefore, did not 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) could be exercised only until the date on which the said award became enforceable and not thereafter, that the correctional jurisdiction under section 6 (6) is not without any limit as to time within which it could 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 39 final it did not contemplate any disturbance of it by amendment or otherwise, and (d) that the High Court was in error in refusing remedy on a supposed consideration 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 correction.