Government cannot unilaterally expand labour dispute scope without workers’ demand: Himachal Pradesh HC [Read Order]

Himachal: The Himachal Pradesh High Court recently held that, without a specific industrial dispute or demand regarding termination, the government cannot suo motu amend references to labour courts.

Justice Ajay Mohan Goel ruled that the State Government exceeded its authority by amending an industrial dispute reference to include termination issues when no demand notice was raised for such termination.

The Court observed that the appropriate government, in the absence of being seized of the issue of termination through a demand notice or industrial dispute, had no authority to make a reference on this matter to the Labour Court. The bench emphasised that termination was a “fresh cause of action” requiring either a separate industrial dispute or a direct claim petition under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, noting that “the Appropriate Government suo motu had no authority to amend the Reference earlier made.”

The petitioners (Auckland House School management) challenged a corrigendum issued by the Joint Labour Commissioner that modified an earlier reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by adding termination issues that were not part of the original dispute. The workers had initially raised an industrial dispute regarding various service conditions, which led to a reference being made to the Labour Court.

During the pendency of conciliation proceedings, certain workers were terminated. Subsequently, the government issued a corrigendum to amend the original reference to include the termination issue. The school challenged this amendment, arguing that it exceeded the government’s authority since no separate demand notice or industrial dispute had been raised specifically about the terminations.

The petitioners contended that the State had no authority to amend the reference through the corrigendum after it had already been made. They submitted that the corrigendum was based on subsequent events that were never part of the original demand notice or dispute.

In response, the State and the workers’ union argued that the government has the power to amend orders under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act.

The Court noted that in the original reference made, the issue was not related to the termination of the services of the employees concerned. Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition and held that, as no demand regarding termination had been raised by the workers, the Government had no jurisdiction to include that issue.

Case Details

Case Name: Auckland House School & Others v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Others

Case No.: CWP No. 4221 of 2022

Date of Decision: 14.10.2025

For the Petitioners: Adv. Naresh K. Sood, Senior Advocate, along with Adv. Aman Sood

For the Respondents: Adv. Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, and Adv. Shikha Chauhan

[Read Order]