1 wp4289.15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETI TION NO.4289/2015
Riyazoddin S/o Shamsoddin Qazi,
aged about 66 Yrs., Occu. Service,
R/o Paradise Colony, Walgaon Road,
Amravati, Taluka and Distt. Amravati. ..Petitioner.
..Vs..
Maharashtra State Co-operative Cotton
Growers Marketing Federation Limited,
through Its Managing Director, Cotton
Complex, Ajani Chowk, Nagpur. ..Respondent.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Shri M.R. Pillai, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri C.V. Kale, Advocate for the respondent.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.
DATE : 18.12.2017. ORLA JUDGMENT
1. Heard Shri M.R. Pillai, Advocate for the petitioner and Shri C.V. Kale, Advocate for the respondent.
2. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Industrial Court by which the application (Exh. No.16) filed by him seeking permission to amend the complaint is rejected.
3. The petitioner / employee has filed complaint under Section 28 read ::: Uploaded on - 02/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/01/2018 23:03:35 ::: 2 wp4289.15 with Items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 praying for declaration that the employer is indulging in unfair labour practice by depriving the complainant of the salary as per the recommendations of 5 th Pay Commission. As the trial progressed, the complainant filed the application (Exh. No.16) seeking permission to bring on record the names of the other employees, who according to the complainant are junior to him but their services are regularised. The complainant further sought to incorporate the pleadings regarding his entitlement for the benefits as per recommendations of "Bhuibhar Committee".
4. The employer opposed the amendment application. The Industrial Court has rejected the application observing that if the complainant is permitted to amend the complaint then the nature of complaint would change.
5. After considering the claim made by the petitioner in the complaint, and the proposed amendment, I find that the conclusions of the Industrial Court are unsustainable and it cannot be said that the nature of complaint would change if the complainant is permitted to amend the complaint.
6. Hence, the following order:
(i) The impugned order is set aside.
::: Uploaded on - 02/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/01/2018 23:03:35 :::
3 wp4289.15
(ii) The application (Exh. No.16) filed by the complainant is allowed.
(iii) At this stage, learned Advocate for the employer objected for
directing that application (Exh. No.16) stands allowed, and it is pointed out that there is no prayer in the writ petition to that effect.
The objection raised by the advocate of the employer is misconceived. This Court can always mould the relief while disposing the matter.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
The respondent shall pay costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand) to the petitioner and produce the receipt of it on record of the Industrial Court within one month, failing which the Industrial Court may pass appropriate orders considering it to be non-compliance of the order of this Court.
JUDGE Tambaskar.
::: Uploaded on - 02/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/01/2018 23:03:35 :::