Summarize the following court judgment. Appeal No. 2568 of 1966. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated March 23	 1966 of the Patna High Court in Misc. Judicial Case No. 118 of 1963. H. R. Gokhale and Sukumar Ghose	 for the appellant. M. K. Ramamurthi	 Shymala Pappu and Vineet Kumar	 for the respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bhargava	 J. The Government of Bihar	 by an Order dated 14th June	 1961	 referred an industrial dispute under section 10(1) of the (14 of 1947) to the Labour Court	 Patna	 wherein the following two issues were referred: "(1) Whether the discharge of the following forty workmen was proper? If not	 whether they are entitled to reinstatement and/or any other relief? (2) Whether the above mentioned workmen are entitled to be made permanent?" Subsequently	 the Government issued an Order by way of corrigendum on the 19th July	 1961	 substituting "Ranchi" for "Patna" 62 in the original order of reference dated 14th June	 1961. The effect of this corrigendum was that the reference of the dispute	 instead of being made to the Labour Court	 Patna	 came before the Labour Court	 Ranchi. In the proceedings before that Court	 the principal objections that was raised was that the Government	 having once made a reference to the Labour Court	 Patna	 was not competent to cancel or withdraw that reference and could not make a competent reference of the same industrial dispute to the Labour Court	 Ranchi	 so that the latter Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the reference. The case before the Labour Court was also contested on various other grounds	 but we need only mention those grounds which have been urged before us in this appeal. While the Labour Court was dealing with the reference	 adjournments were sought on behalf of the appellant	 M/s. Dabur (Dr. section K. Burman) Private Ltd. After decision of some preliminary points by the order dated 18th August	 1962	 the case was fixed for hearing on 19th November	 1962. On that date	 the management again prayed for an adjournment on the ground that their local Manager	 Sri Basant Jha	 had been lying ill for some time past and it was not possible for the management to prosecute their case with diligence. The Labour Court rejected this application and	 thereupon	 proceeded to hear the reference ex parte. The Labour Court held that the reference to it was competent and it had jurisdiction to deal with it	 even though	 by the original order of reference	 the Government had purported to refer the dispute to the Labour Court	 Patna. On the first issue referred	 the Court recorded the finding that the 40 workmen	 who had been discharged	 were not casual workers and that their discharge by the employers on the basis that they were casual workers was not proper. It was further held that the discharge was mala fide inasmuch as the purpose of the discharge was to avoid the liability of treating these workmen as permanent employees by preventing them from completing 240 days of work in a year. There was the further finding that the workmen were all discharged from service as they had demanded increase in rates of wages and had also claimed that Sundays should be made paid holidays. Against this award	 the appellant filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Patna requesting that Court to quash the award. That Court upheld the award and dismissed the writ petition. Consequently	 the appellant has come up to this Court by special leave against that judgment of the High Court. Mr. Gokhale	 appearing on behalf of the appellant	 emphati cally urged that both the Labour Court	 Ranchi as well as the Patna High Court were wrong in holding that	the reference to the Labour Court	 Ranchi	 was competent even after the reference	 63 had originally been made to the Labour Court	 Patna. He relied on the principle laid down by this Court that once the Government has made a reference to a particular Labour Court	 it is that Labour Court which becomes seized of that industrial dispute and	 thereafter	 the Government has no jurisdiction either to withdraw that reference or cancel it. In this case	 however	 as is clear from the judgment of the High Court	 the question that arose was entirely different. The High Court has clearly held that this was not a case where the Government either withdrew or cancelled the reference to the Labour Court	 Patna. The High Court has held that	 from the facts stated by the appellant in the writ petition filed in that Court	 it appeared that the alteration in the order of reference was a mere correction of a clerical error. because	 by mistake	 Patna had been mentioned in place of Ranchi in the first notification. The second notification merely corrected that mistake. Mr. Gokhale wanted us to hold that the High Court was wrong in its view that the Government had merely made ' correction of a clerical error and that we should accept the submission on behalf of the appellant that	 in fact	 the State Government bad first intentionally referred the dispute to the Labour Court	 Patna	 and issued the corrigendum only when the Government decided that the reference should go to the Labour Court	 Ranchi and not Labour Court	 Patna	 because Labour Court	 Patna bad no jurisdiction to entertain the reference. We are unable to accept this submission made on behalf of the appellant. The High Court drew in inference from the facts stated in the writ petition filed by the appellant itself that this was a case of mere correction of a clerical error. This finding recorded by the High Court on the basis of the facts given in the writ petition is not now open to challenge in this special appeal	 particularly because even a copy of that writ petition has not been made a part of the paper book before us. We cannot see how any objection can be taken to the competence of the State Government to make a correction of a mere clerical error. The finding that it was a clerical error means that the Government in fact intended to make the reference to the Labour Court	 Ranchi; but while actually scribing the order of reference	 a mistake was committed by the writer of putting down Patna instead of Ranchi. Such a clerical error can always be corrected and such a correction does not amount either to the withdrawal of the reference from. or cancellation of the reference to. the Labour Court	 Patna. The High Court was. therefore. right in rejecting this contention on behalf of the appellant. On merits	 Mr. Gokhale wanted to urge only two points before us. 'One was that the Labour Court committed a manifest error of law apparent on the face of the record in holding that the workmen concerned were not casual workers. The judgment of the High Court	 however	 shows that before that Court 64 it was nowhere urged or argued that any such error of law apparent on the face of the record had been committed by the Labour Court. What was urged before the High Court was that	 even on the ex parte evidence on record	 the Labour Court ought to have held that the workmen were mere casual labourers. The High Court was right in holding that this point urged on behalf of the appellant essentially raised a question of fact only and that Court	 in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution	 could not interfere on such a question of fact. Since no submission was made before the High Court that the finding of the Labour Court that the workmen are not casual labourers suffers from any manifest error of law apparent on the face of the record	 the appellant is not entitled to raise this point in this special appeal before us. On the finding actually recorded by the Labour Court and upheld by the High Court	 the order of the Labour Court directing reinstatement of these workmen is fully justified	 so that the order made by the Labour Court	 insofar as it is against the interests of the appellant	 is correct and must be upheld. In view of this position	 it is unnecessary to go into the question whether the Labour Court was or was not right in recording the finding as to mala fides. The only other point urged was that the Labour Court should not have proceeded ex parte when material was placed before that Court on behalf of the appellant to show that its local Manager	 Sri Basant Jha	 was in fact lying ill. The question whether an adjournment should or should not have been granted on this ground was in the discretion of the Labour Court. Even the order by which the Labour Court rejected that application for adjournment is not before us and	 consequently	 it cannot be held that the Labour Court committed any such error in rejecting the application for adjournment and proceeding ex parte as would justify interference by this Court. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Y.P. Appeal dismissed.

The Government referred an industrial dispute to Labour Court	 Patna	 and subsequently issued an order by way of corrigendum substituting "Ranchi" for "Patna". In proceedings before the Labour Court	 Ranchi	 objection was raised that once having made the reference to the Labour Court	 Patna	 the Government was not competent to cancel or withdraw that reference	 so the Labour Court	 Ranchi had no jurisdiction. The Labour Court	 Ranchi rejected the objection. The High Court also rejected this Contention. In appeal to this Court: HELD: The alteration in the order of reference was a mere correction of a clerical error. because	 by mistake	 Patna had been mentioned in place of Ranchi in the first notification and the second notification merely corrected that mistake. Such a clerical error can always be corrected and such a correction does not amount either to the withdrawal of the reference from	 or cancellation of the re ference to the Labour Court	 Patna. [63F H]