vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J WRIT PETITION NO.2311 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.2311 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.2311 OF 2007 Workmen of Vazir Glass Works ltd. ... Petitioner V/s. Commissioner of Labour & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.A.R. Shaikh for Petitioner Mr.Rahul Nerlekar for Respondent No.3 CORAM: J.N. PATEL & J.N. PATEL & J.N. PATEL & SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. MHATRE, JJ. MHATRE, JJ. DATED: JANUARY 31, 2008 JANUARY 31, 2008 JANUARY 31, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . This petition challenges the order passed by the appropriate government refusing to issue a corrigendum to Reference (IT) No.4 of 2004. The petitioners had raised demands on 24.6.2002 on their employer Respondent No.3 inter alia in respect of payment of privilege leave @ 32 days per annum for factory worker and 30 days per annum for office staff for the period from 1.11.1992 to May 1997. The demands were admitted in conciliation and the dispute which was referred for adjudication in 2004 was as follows: The complainant shall be paid privilege leave wages for the period 1992-1997 as per the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948. : 2 : 2. The pleadings were filed by the petitioners who, were represented initially by the Maharashtra General Kamgar Union and by Respondent No.3. Draft issues were filed by Respondent No.3 and were accepted by the Industrial Tribunal. The Tribunal framed the issues as follows: 1. Whether the Second party proves that they are entitled to privilege leave wages for period from 3.11.1992 to 31.5.1997 as per the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948? 2. Whether the First party proves that reference as made was not maintainable? 3. What award? 3. The petitioners then on 22.8.2006 filed an application for recasting issues in the following manner: "1) Whether the Second party proves that they are entitled to privilege leave/wages of 32 Days p.a. for factory workmen and 30 days p.a. for office administrative Staff for period from : 3 : 3.11.1992 to 31.5.1997?" 4. Respondent No.3 opposed this application and it is still pending decision before the Industrial Tribunal. In the meantime, the petitioner made an application to the appropriate government to issue a corrigendum to the terms of Reference which was already made. The petitioner applied that the expression "as per the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948" be deleted from the original Reference. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour by his order dated 30.8.2007 refused to issue a corrigendum on the ground that the Reference was pending adjudication and, therefore, the request made by the petitioner could not be entertained. 5. We have perused a copy of the statement of claim. Para 23 of the statement of claim clearly mentions the demand raised by the workmen. The petitioners have not mentioned that they are claiming privilege leave under the Factories Act in their demand at all. The learned counsel for the respondent drew our attention to paragraphs 26 and 27 of the statement of claim, where the petitioners had claimed that their demand which was referred in terms of the schedule of the Reference was legal and justified and therefore : 4 : deserved to be granted. He, submits that the petitioners all along were aware of the terms of reference which crystallised the dispute raised by the petitioners to be for the grant of privilege leave under the Factories Act and not any other provision of law or any other agreement, settlement or award. The learned counsel also submits that the workmen can always raise a fresh industrial dispute as observed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour in the impugned order and, therefore, there is no need to issue corrigendum. He points out that the parties have already filed the pleadings and are in the midst of leading evidence and, therefore, the petitioners should not be permitted to seek a corrigendum to amend the terms of Reference at this belated stage. 6. In our opinion, it was never the intention of the petitioners to claim privilege leave only under the Factories Act. The demand is absolutely clear as privilege leave has been claimed @ 32 days for factory workers and @ 30 days for office staff for the period from 1.11.1992 to May 1997. Therefore, in our opinion, in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings it would be appropriate for a corrigendum to be issued to amend the Reference as submitted by the petitioners. 7. The delay in making application for issuance of : 5 : a corrigendum has been satisfactorily explained. It was only after the Tribunal framed issues as aforesaid that the workmen found it necessary to file an application for recasting the issues. Since no order has been passed on this application as yet, the petitioners have approached the appropriate government to issue a corrigendum. In our opinion, the contentions raised by the petitioners are correct and the petition deserves to be allowed. In the circumstances, Petition is allowed. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to forthwith issue a corrigendum to amend Reference (IT) No.4 of 2004 in the terms sought by the petitioner. (J.N. PATEL, J.) (SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.)