Bombay High Court
Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Memoral ... vs Rajendra Vitthalrao Kuche on 14 June, 2017
Bench: I.K. Jain
wp.5829.16.jud 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.5829 OF 2016
01] Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Memorial
Medical College, Through its Dean
Dr. Dilip Sheshraoji Jane, Age : 65 years,
R/o Panchawati Chowk, Amravati,
Tq. and Dist. Amravati.
02] Shri Shivaji Education Society,
Through its Secretary, Shivaji Nagar,
Amravati, Tq. and Dist. Amravati. .... Petitioners
-- Versus -
Rajendra Vitthalrao Kuche,
Aged about 61 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o Vinayak Nagar, Near Radha Nagar,
Amravati, Tq. and Dist. Amravati. .... Respondent
Shri P.A. Kadu, Advocate for the Petitioners.
None appears for the Respondent.
CORAM : KUM. INDIRA JAIN, J.
DATE : JUNE 14, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of learned Counsel for petitioners.
02] This petition takes an exception to the order dated
13/07/2016 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
::: Uploaded on - 16/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2017 00:53:15 :::
wp.5829.16.jud 2
Amravati below Exh.67 in Reference No.30/2006 thereby
rejecting the application for amendment in the written
statement.
03] The facts giving rise to the petition may be stated in
brief as under :
i. Respondent no.1 was appointed as Junior Clerk with
the petitioners. A departmental action was taken
against him for some lapses and on 19/01/2002,
petitioner no.2-society passed resolution to suspend
the respondent. In view of the resolution, respondent
was suspended vide order dated 02/08/2002.
ii. Charge-sheet was served on the respondent. Inquiry
report came to be submitted on 01/04/2004 and in
pursuance to the inquiry report, respondent no.2
passed a resolution dated 26/04/2004 proposing to
dismiss the respondent from service.
iii. Based on the resolution, show cause notice was
issued and services of respondent came to be
::: Uploaded on - 16/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2017 00:53:15 :::
wp.5829.16.jud 3
terminated with effect from 28/10/2004. Dispute was
raised by the respondent and Assistant Commissioner
of Labour referred the dispute to the Labour Court for
adjudication. Respondent filed statement of claim.
The same was replied by the petitioners. Some
preliminary issues were raised and vide order dated
26/05/2014, learned Presiding Officer of the Labour
Court held that inquiry was not conducted by
following the principles of natural justice. On
16/12/2015, petitioners moved an application for
amendment in the written statement. It was rejected
by the impugned order. Hence, this petition.
04] Heard Shri P.A. Kadu, learned Counsel for petitioners.
It is submitted that amendment to statement of claim and
written statement before the Labour Court and the Industrial
Court is governed by Rule 16A of the Industrial Disputes
(Bombay) Rules, 1957. According to the learned Counsel,
amendment can be sought at any stage and in case amendment
is essential to the determination of real issues between the
parties, Labour Court is empowered to grant amendment in the
::: Uploaded on - 16/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2017 00:53:15 :::
wp.5829.16.jud 4
written statement. A grievance is made that bypassing Rule
16A, wrongly amendment application came to be rejected and
thereby an opportunity came to be denied to petitioners.
05] With the assistance of learned Counsel for petitioners,
this Court has gone through application for amendment [Exh.67],
order passed thereon, statement of claim raised by respondent
and written statement filed by petitioners before the Labour
Court. The amendment proposed relates to initiation of action
against the respondent. According to petitioner no.1, decision to
hold inquiry and to terminate the services of respondent was
taken by the Society and the resolution to that effect was passed
in its Executive Committee Meeting. It can be seen from the
preliminary issues framed and determined by the Labour Court
that the preliminary issues were relating to the fairness of
inquiry. Who was instrumental in initiating action against the
employee was not the preliminary issue before the Labour Court
at the time of passing order dated 26/05/2014.
06] Rule 16A of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules
empowers Labour Court or Tribunal to allow amendment at any
::: Uploaded on - 16/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2017 00:53:15 :::
wp.5829.16.jud 5
stage of the proceedings, if the proposed amendment is
necessary for the purpose of determining the real issue included
in the order of reference. Needless to state that respondent
raised the dispute and challenged the order of his termination.
The question as to whose behest action was initiated is thus
relevant and essential to determine the controversy between the
parties. Considering the nature of dispute, proposed amendment
was essential. No prejudice would be caused to respondent if
proposed amendment is allowed. Interference is, therefore,
warranted in the writ jurisdiction. Hence, the following order :
ORDER
i. Writ Petition No.5829/2016 is allowed.
ii. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (I)
with no order as to costs.
*sdw JUDGE
