Industrial peace and harmonious relations between employers and employees form the cornerstone of India’s labour jurisprudence. The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is the key legislation that governs the resolution of disputes between workmen and management. However, before any matter can be referred for adjudication, an essential precondition must be met — the existence or apprehension of an industrial dispute.
The recent judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Auckland House School & Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (CWP No. 4221 of 2022, decided on 14.10.2025) reaffirms this principle and underscores that, in the absence of a live or existing dispute, the government cannot make a reference to the Labour Court under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act.
The case revolves around the legality of a “corrigendum” issued by the State Government, which sought to modify an earlier reference to the Labour Court by including an issue that was never part of the original industrial dispute or demand notice. The Court held that such a reference, made in the absence of an existing dispute, was void and unsustainable in law.
Background of the Case
Facts of the Case
The petitioners, Auckland House School and its management, approached the Himachal Pradesh High Court challenging a corrigendum dated 26 June 2019, issued by the Joint Labour Commissioner. The corrigendum amended a reference earlier made by the State Government under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to the Labour Court, concerning demands raised by the Auckland House School Workers Union.
Initially, the Union had raised a demand notice dated 28 July 2016, regarding certain service-related grievances such as working conditions, pay, and benefits. The conciliation proceedings failed, and consequently, the Government made a reference to the Labour Court on 6 April 2017 to adjudicate those specific issues.
However, during the pendency of the conciliation, the contractor, M/S Sanchi Management Services Pvt. Ltd., terminated the services of certain employees. This termination was independent of the original grievances and was not part of the initial demand notice or the industrial dispute under conciliation. Despite this, the Government issued a corrigendum inserting a new issue — namely, the legality of the termination of services during conciliation — into the existing reference.
The petitioners challenged this corrigendum as ultra vires and beyond the government’s authority, contending that it introduced a new dispute that had never been raised or conciliated.
Issues
The principal questions before the Himachal Pradesh High Court were:
- Whether the Appropriate Government can amend or vary a reference already made under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to include issues that were never part of the original industrial dispute?
- Whether the absence of an existing or apprehended industrial dispute bars the Government from making such a reference to the Labour Court?
- Whether the termination of employees during conciliation proceedings can be included in an existing reference through a corrigendum, despite no demand or conciliation on that issue?
Contentions of the Parties
Petitioners’ Submissions
- Senior Counsel for the petitioners argued that the Government lacked the jurisdiction to issue the corrigendum because:
- The power to refer disputes under Section 10 arises only when an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended.
- The termination of employees was a new cause of action that had not been part of the demand notice or the earlier conciliation.
- The Government’s corrigendum was per se illegal, as it was based on an issue that had never been raised by the workers or processed through conciliation.
- Once a reference has been made, the Labour Court cannot modify or expand it, and any amendment to include new issues without following due procedure is invalid.
Respondents’ Submissions
On the other hand, the State and the Union’s counsel contended that:
- The Government retains the power under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 to amend or vary notifications, including references made under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act.
- The corrigendum merely reflected an incidental development — i.e., the termination of employees — that occurred during conciliation and was thus relevant to the ongoing dispute.
- The inclusion of the termination issue prevented multiplicity of litigation, as the same matter could be adjudicated together.
- The Labour Court had no authority to question the validity of the reference once it was received from the Government.
Court’s Observations and Findings
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel delivered the judgment, providing a clear exposition on the limits of governmental power to refer disputes under the Industrial Disputes Act.
1. Reference Requires an Existing or Apprehended Industrial Dispute
The Court began by reiterating the principle embodied in Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:
“Where the appropriate government is of the opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, it may, at any time, by order in writing, refer the dispute to the Labour Court or Tribunal for adjudication.”
The Court held that this statutory precondition — the existence of an industrial dispute — is not a mere formality but the foundation for any valid reference. Unless a demand has been raised and conciliation has failed, the Government cannot assume the existence of a dispute and refer it for adjudication.
2. Section 2A and the Right of an Individual Workman
Justice Goel emphasised that Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act deems the dismissal, retrenchment, or termination of an individual workman to be an industrial dispute, even without union sponsorship. However, such a dispute can be raised either through a demand notice or by direct application to the Labour Court under Section 2A.
In the present case, since the termination occurred after the original demand and conciliation proceedings, the employees could have availed remedies under Section 2A. But the Government could not suo motu insert that issue into the existing reference without any fresh demand.
3. Corrigendum Was Beyond the Government’s Authority
The Court categorically held that the corrigendum dated 26 June 2019 was beyond the Government’s powers because:
- The termination issue was not part of the original dispute.
- No fresh demand notice or conciliation proceedings had been conducted regarding the termination.
- The Government’s act amounted to initiating a new reference suo motu, which is not permitted under the Act.
It was observed:
“The appropriate government, in the absence of being seized with the issue of termination by way of a demand notice or industrial dispute, had no authority to make a reference of this issue to the Labour Court.”
4. Workmen Not Rendered Remedy-less
Importantly, the Court clarified that setting aside the corrigendum does not deprive the workers of their rights. They remain free to approach the Labour Court independently under Section 2A for adjudication of their termination. Furthermore, the Court directed that delay and laches would not bar such proceedings, given the peculiar circumstances of the case.
5. The Labour Court Must Confine itself to the Original Reference
Finally, the Court instructed that the Labour Court should proceed only on the original reference made on 6 April 2017, pertaining to the grievances that were actually raised and conciliated.
Decision of the Court
Himachal Pradesh High Court allowed the writ petition, holding that:
- The Corrigendum dated 26 June 2019 was illegal, ultra vires, and unsustainable, as it was made in the absence of an industrial dispute.
- The order of the Labour Court dated 7 May 2022, which upheld the corrigendum, was quashed and set aside.
- The workmen were granted liberty to file a fresh claim under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act regarding their termination.
- The Labour Court was directed to adjudicate only the issues originally referred to it by the Government.
Conclusion
Himachal Pradesh High Court’s ruling in Auckland House School & Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. is a significant reaffirmation of the legal boundaries governing references under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It clearly delineates that without a live industrial dispute, the Government’s reference to the Labour Court is void ab initio.
The judgment upholds the sanctity of statutory procedure, ensures balance between employer and employee rights, and reinforces the foundational principle that justice must be administered within the framework of law.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams