WA 134/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MADAN B. LOKUR THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T. VAIPHEI The appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 23/7/2008 passed by the learned Sin gle Judge in WP(C) 7380/2002. The workman (represented by the Union) was alleged to have misappropriat ed a sum of about Rs. 2.88 lakhs. A domestic enquiry was held in this regard and the he was found guilty of the misappropriation and his services terminated. Subsequently, the workman raised an industrial dispute and the State Gov ernment referred the following question for adjudication under Section 10 of the Industrial Act, 1947:- Whether the Management of Bormahjan Tea Estate, P.O. Helam, Dist. Sonitpur are justified in terminating the services of Shri Tarun Bora, Head Clerk of Bormahja n T.E. with effect from 1st January 1997? If not, is Shri Tarun Bora entitled to reinstatement with all back wages and other back benefits or any other relief in lieu thereof? It appears that despite a reference having been made, the Union did not take any interest in the matter. The management led its evidence and proved the domestic enquiry report before the Labour Court. On the basis of the materials before it, the Labour Court made an Award dated 17 /1/2001 that the question is required to be answered in the affirmative. The sec ond question, therefore, was required to be answered in the negative. Feeling aggrieved, the workman approached this Court through the Union b y a writ petition which came to be dismissed by the order under appeal. The learned Single Judge examined the records of the case and came to th e conclusion that no error was committed by the Labour Court. Accordingly, the w rit petition was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, the workman is now before us. Learned counsel for the appellant has more or less reiterated the submis sions made before the learned Single Judge. It is contended that there was no laxity on the part of the workman in the condu ct of the proceedings before the Labour Court. We are not in agreement with this contention. We find, from a perusal of the records, that no written statement w as filed by the workman for a considerable period of time. Even in the Award, it has been noted that despite the parties having been notified, the workman nor t he Union did not file any written statement and did not contest the case. It is submitted by learned counsel for the workman that there was error in the description of the Union inasmuch as in the reference, instead of describ ing the workman represented by the Central Office of the Assam Chah Karmachari S angha, it was shown that the workman was represented by the Circle Office of the Assam Chah Karmachari Sangha. This was corrected by the State Government on an application made by the Union. It is submitted that the time taken by the State Government in making the correction should not be included for the purpose of ho lding that there was a delay on the part of the workman in filing the written st atement. In our opinion this is far too technical a contention. The workman has b een represented by the Assam Chah Karmachari Sangha through its Secretary right from the beginning, when a reference was made under section 10 of the Industrial Act, 1947. This is not in dispute. The mere technically incorrect description o f the Central Office as a Circle Office is not of much significance. Both the wo rkman and the Union were aware of the facts of the case and the industrial dispu te. A mere misnomer, not going to the root of the case cannot be good enough to set aside the Award. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order on a mere technicality which does not even go to the root of the controversy. Cons equently, we reject this submission of learned counsel. It is then submitted that the learned Single Judge was in error in holdi ng that the matter was adjourned as many as fifteen times at the behest of the p etitioner. The fact remains that for a considerable period of time, the workman took no effective steps for filing a written statement, the number of adjournmen ts is irrelevant. We do not find any fault in the decision rendered by the Labou r Court or the learned Single Judge against the workman for his (workman) failur e in filing a written statement. There is no merit in the appeal and it is accordingly dismissed.