Life Long India Ltd v. Presiding Officer, Labor court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Gurgaon-I & Anr.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr.Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. This is a petition brought by M/s Life Long India Ltd. (for short 'the employer') under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 06.05.2011(Annexure P-3) passed by respondent no.1. In an industrial dispute raised by Satya Parkash, respondent no.2, referred by Government to respondent no.1, learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Gurgaon-I, District Gurgaon,(for short 'the Labour Court'), respondent no.2 filed his claim. The petitioner submitted its written statement and thereafter respondent no.2 filed replication to the written statement on 24.09.2009. Respondent no.2 filed an application for amendment of replication on the ground that on account of misunderstanding and oversight certain facts could not be mentioned in the replication, which he Civil Revision No.

5649 of 2011 --2-- wanted to add by way of amendment in the replication. The same is that no opportunity was given to him to present his case in the inquiry and that the inquiry was conducted without giving him opportunity by associating him in the same and that the same was conducted in contravention of the principles of natural justice. The application was opposed by the employer claiming that the applicant intended to make out a new case by way of amendment. It is also averred that there is no justification for permission to the applicant to amend the replication. Hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Labour Court had allowed the application for amendment of the replication vide the impugned order. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the employer has brought this revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the general principles of the Code of Civil Procedure apply to the proceedings before the Labour Court.

According to him, under the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, the amendment should not be allowed after the trial has commenced. According to him, learned Presiding Officer has not even discussed the merits of the case and has allowed the application in routine. He has submitted that the application should not have been allowed by learned Presiding Officer. Even if it is taken that amendment was not to be allowed after the trial of the case has commenced, the submission made in this regard by Civil Revision No. 5649 of 2011 --3-- learned counsel for the petitioner is fallacious because, as is stated by learned Presiding Officer, the trial had yet not commenced. Learned Labour Court has clearly mentioned that the evidence of the workman had yet not begun. What merits are to be discussed by learned Presiding Officer while allowing the application is not clarified by learned counsel for the petitioner.

It is a case of the workman that he has been dismissed from service in pursuance of the findings of an inquiry, which was conducted in contravention of the principles of natural justice. The workman has sought to add this very fact in the replication by way of amendment. So no prejudice whatsoever appears to have been caused to the employer by allowing of the application for amendment of replication. Therefore, finding no merit in the revision petition, the same is dismissed.

04.10.2011 dinesh (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE