Clerical correction power cannot reopen merits or alter a final labour award; substantive modification was impermissible.

Section 6(6) of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 permits only correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes and accidental slips or omissions. The provision is analogous to Section 152 CPC and is confined to ministerial corrections; it cannot be used to alter, add to, or vary the substantive terms of a final award, or to reopen the merits under the guise of correction. The omission sought to be corrected must be unintentional and non-substantive. Applying these principles, the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction to modify the award to grant back wages, and the High Court should not have upheld that modification.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Labour Court could invoke Section 6(6) of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to modify the original award and grant back wages, and whether the High Court erred in upholding that modification.

Analysis: Section 6(6) authorises only correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes and errors arising from accidental slip or omission. The power is analogous to Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which is confined to ministerial corrections and does not permit the Court or Tribunal to alter, add to, or otherwise vary the substantive terms of a final judgment or award. A correction cannot be used as a substitute for review or as a means of reopening the merits of the matter. The omission or error sought to be corrected must be unintentional and not one that affects the merits of the case. These principles equally apply to the Labour Court's power under Section 6(6).

Conclusion: The Labour Court had no jurisdiction to modify the award in the manner done, and the High Court ought not to have sustained that modification. The challenge to the modification succeeded.

---