Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 23630 of 1994 Petitioner :- M/S. Shriram Industrial Enterprises Meerut Respondent :- Labour Court Meerut & Others Petitioner Counsel :- Bharati Sapru,Sunita Agarwal Respondent Counsel :- S.C.,R.K. Asthana Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J.
Heard Smt. Sunita Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner. No
one has appeared for the respondents even in the revised list.
A dispute as to whether the services of the respondent No.2 were
validly terminated on 21.10.1990 was referred to the labour Court
vide reference order dated 23.7.1993. Petitioner in proceedings
before the labour Court after filing of the written statement moved
an application 23-D for framing of certain issues and another
application 27-D supported by affidavit 28-D for the amendment
of the written statement. The said two applications have been
rejected by the labour Court vide two separate orders dated
27.4.1994 and 16.5.1994. Thereafter, petitioner applied for recall
of the order dated 16.5.1994 which application was also rejected
on 3.6.1994. Then a recall application was filed and the same was
rejected on 13.6.1994. Thus, all the aforesaid four orders have
been impugned by the petitioner in the writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
application for preliminary objection was wrongly rejected.
The submission made is bereft of any merit. The perusal of the
aforesaid application indicates that no preliminary objection
whatsoever was sought to be raised by the petitioner. The said
application was to the effect that certain issues as enumerated
therein be formulated for decision before proceeding with the
adjudication case. In my opinion, the labour Court while dealing
with a reference is only required to answer the question which has
been referred to it for adjudication and no other matter. In deciding
the same it is other thing that it may have to take into consideration
all other ancillary points which may be relevant and material for
deciding the question referred. However, it is not necessary for it
to frame any particular issue.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the view
that the labour Court had not erred in rejecting the application
paper No. 23-D and in passing the order dated 27.4.1994.
As far as the order dated 16.5.1994 by which the application for
amendment has been rejected, it has been argued that without
relevant pleadings that the respondent No.1 had not worked for
even 12 months immediately preceding his last engagement the
petitioner would not be in a position to lead effective evidence in
defence. The perusal of the amendment application indicates that
the petitioner only wanted to add paragraph 21 to the written
statement by saying that the concerned workman has worked only
for 181 days during the period of 12 months immediately
preceding his last engagement on 30.4.1990 and is not eligible for
any relief whatsoever. Such an amendment in my opinion in no
way would have altered the nature of the proceedings so as to
cause prejudice to the workman. Moreover, the said averments
sought to be added by amending the written statement goes to the
basics of the merits of the reference and as such was essential to be
permitted to be raised in defence. The labour Court by the order
dated 16.5.1994 rejected the aforesaid application solely on the
ground that the amendment was not of a clerical nature, as if only
amendments to correct the clerical errors in the written statement
are permissible which is not the position in law. There is no bar in
seeking amendment to the pleadings whether on account of clerical
error or otherwise.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the labour Court
was not justified in refusing the amendment as prayed for.
Accordingly, the order dated 16.5.1994 is liable to be quashed.
Now come the orders dated 3.6.1994 and 13.6.1994. The said
orders require no adjudication on merits in this writ petition as the
basic order dated 16.5.1994 itself has been held to be bad in law.
In view of the above, the writ petition succeeds in part. The order
dated 16.5.1994 (Annexure 14 to the writ petition) in so far as it
rejects the application of the petitioner for amendment of the
written statement is quashed. The order dated 27.4.1994
(Annexure 11 to the writ petition) is upheld.
The petition is allowed to the above extent. No costs.
Order Date :- 28.1.2010
S.S.