Shri. Prakash Manoharrao Petkar vs St. Francis De Sales Educational ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 6675 Bom

                                    1
                                                              wp6373.14.odt

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                          
                 NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR




                                                  
                       Writ Petition No.6373 of 2014


      Shri Prakash Manoharrao Petkar,




                                                 
      Aged 35 years,
      Occupation - Service,
      R/o C/o Virayrao Gachane,
      Ramnagar, Telangkhedi,
      Nagpur.                                          ... Petitioner




                                       
           Versus            
      1. St. Francis De-Sales Educational
         Institution,
                            
         Seminary Hills, Nagpur,
         through its Managing Committee.

      2. The Joint Director,
      

         Higher Education,
         Nagpur Division, Nagpur,
   



         Civil Lines, Nagpur.

      *3. Smt. Vaishali Rose Eliyas,
          St. Francis De-Sales College,





          Seminary Hills, Nagpur.

      *4. Mr. Vincen P. More,
          St. Francis De-Sales College,
          Seminary Hills, Nagpur.





           (Petition is dismissed against
           Respondent Nos.3 and 4 vide
           Registrar (J) Order dated 2-3-2016)         ... Respondents




    ::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2016                  ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2016 00:20:07 :::
                                       2
                                                                   wp6373.14.odt

      Shri M.V. Mohokar, Advocate for Petitioner.




                                                                                
      Ms D.N. Sapkal, Advocate, holding for Smt. Neeta Jog, Advocate 
      for Respondent No.1.




                                                        
      Shri A.R. Chutke, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent 
      No.2.




                                                       
                    Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J.

th Dated : 24 November, 2016

Oral Judgment :

1.

Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by

consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties.

2. The challenge in this petition is to the order

dated 21-8-2014 passed by the Industrial Court, Nagpur rejecting

the application for amendment at Exhibit 71 filed by the

petitioner in Complaint (ULP) No.120 of 2008 at the stage when

the witness examined by the respondent No.1 was required to be

cross-examined. The Industrial Court has held that the

petitioner-complainant has failed to establish due diligence in

moving the application for amendment. The plea raised by the

petitioner-complainant was that the requirement of three years'

wp6373.14.odt

experience as Laboratory Attendant came to his knowledge for

the first time when it was deposed by the witness, who was

examined by the respondent No.1 on 12-3-2014, and the

application was accordingly moved on 27-3-2014.

3. The claim of the petitioner-complainant pending before

the Industrial Court is for promotion from the post of Library

Assistant to the post of Laboratory Attendant. The amendment

proposed in respect of possessing of three years' experience on

the post of Laboratory Attendant is absolutely necessary for

deciding the real controversy involved in the matter. The

Industrial Court has partly allowed the application, permitting

joining of persons, who have superseded the

petitioner-complainant in the matter of promotion. The

Industrial Court ought to have, therefore, allowed the application

for amendment, and there was no question of due diligence

being shown by the petitioner-complainant, as he came to know

the fact for the first time when the witness was cross-examined.

The order impugned cannot, therefore, be sustained.

wp6373.14.odt

4. In the result, the petition is allowed. The order

dated 21-8-2014 passed by the Industrial Court, Nagpur, on

Exhibit 71 in Complaint (ULP) No.120 of 2008, is hereby

quashed and set aside. The application at Exhibit 71 is allowed.

The petitioner is permitted to carry out the amendment within a

period of one week from the date of first appearance of the

parties before the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court shall

permit the consequential amendment, if any required.

5. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to

costs.

JUDGE.

Lanjewar