Bombay High Court
The Maharashtra Ex-Servicemen ... vs Shankar Pyarelal Meshram on 30 March, 2022
Bench: Manish Pitale
922-WP3666.21.odt
1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 3666 OF 2021
The Maharashtra Ex-Servicemen Corporation Ltd. & anr..
-Vs.-
Shankar Pyarelal Meshram
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.
or directions and Registrar's orders.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.D.P.Bhongade, counsel for the petitioners.
Mr.Vivek R. Borkar, counsel for the respondent.
CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J.
DATE : 30.03.2022
P.C. :
By this petition, the petitioners have challenged
order dated 26/03/2021 passed by the Labour Court,
Gondia, whereby an application at Exhibit-C-12 filed on
behalf of the petitioners for amendment of written
statement has been rejected.
2. In the present case, the respondent has filed an
application under section 33C(2) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 praying for direction to the
petitioners to pay specific amount towards decree of
wages and for compensation along with interest. The
said application was filed on 09/09/2015. The
petitioners filed their written statement opposing the
said application on 28/10/2015.
3. Thereafter, the Labour Court framed issues
including an issue pertaining to the maintainability of
the application, in view of specific stand taken by the
KHUNTE
922-WP3666.21.odt
petitioners in their written statement. The matter
proceeded further and the affidavit-in-evidence on
behalf of the respondent was filed some time in the year
2017 and as on today, the evidence of the respondent is
over and that of the petitioners is to be recorded.
4. In March 2020, the petitioners filed the
application at Exhibit-C-12 for permission to amend
their written statement in order to add proposed
paragraphs in the written statement to further support
their case as regards maintainability of the application
filed by the respondent. This application was opposed
and by the impugned order, the Labour Court rejected
the said application.
5. The petitioners filed the present writ petition in
which notice was issued on 23/09/2021 and the
respondent had entered appearance through counsel.
6. Mr.Bhongade, learned counsel for the
petitioners, submitted that the Labour Court committed
an error in passing the impugned order for the reason
that the amendment sought by the petitioners was in
the nature of placing on record clarification and to
elaborate the pleadings already placed on record in the
written statement of the petitioners pertaining to the
question of maintainability of the application filed by
the respondent before the Labour Court, particularly
pertaining to the pleading that the petitioners could not
be categorized as an industry. It was submitted that as
per settled law, the Courts are liberal in permitting
amendment of written statement and that such an
amendment would certainly not cause any prejudice to
KHUNTE
922-WP3666.21.odt
the plaintiff (respondent herein). The learned counsel
for the petitioners placed reliance on judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Usha Balasaheb
Swami and Ors v. Kiran Appaso Swami and Ors.,
reported in AIR 2007 SC 1663, emphasizing that the
general principle for amendment of pleadings was that
such an amendment would not bring about material
alterations or substitution of the original pleadings and
that amendments seeking to clarify the pleadings
already on record could be permitted.
7. On the other hand, Mr. Borkar, learned counsel
for the respondent, vehemently opposed the present
petition. He submitted that the petitioners had filed the
amendment application, only with a view to delay the
proceedings before the Labour Court and to harass the
respondent, who is a poor workman. It was further
submitted that when the trial had commenced and the
stage was of recording of evidence of the petitioners, the
Labour Court had no power to allow the application for
amendment and that therefore, the impugned order was
justified. It was further submitted that the necessary
pleadings were already on record in the written
statement and that the proposed pleadings sought to be
added were superfluous and unnecessary.
8. This Court has considered the rival contentions.
It is a settled position that while considering the
amendment of written statement, the Court does adopt
a liberal approach. The Court is to examine the nature
of the proposed amendment and in that context,
whether the nature of the pleadings is sought to be
KHUNTE
922-WP3666.21.odt
materially altered. It is also a settled position that in the
written statement even mutually contradictory pleas can
be taken. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the
petitioners in the case of Usha Balasaheb Swami and
Ors. v. Kiran Appaso Swami and Ors. (supra), the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the liberal
approach to be adopted by Courts while considering
applications for amendment of written statement.
9. In the case of M/s. Revajeetu Builders &
Developers v. Narayanswamy & Sons, reported in
(2009)10 SCC 84, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
further reiterated the approach to be adopted by Courts
while considering the question of amendment of written
statement. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has emphasized that the inconvenience caused to
the contesting party while allowing such amendment by
adopting a liberal approach has to be compensated by
an appropriate direction to pay costs.
10. In the present case, perusal of the proposed
amendment shows that it is in the nature of elaborating
pleadings already placed on record in the original
written statement in the context of maintainability of
the application filed by the respondent. Certain
pleadings are proposed to be added, in order to
elaborate the stand already taken and in that context
this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the
interest of justice that the amendment is allowed so that
the Labour Court is assisted in reaching appropriate
findings on the issues already framed, particularly the
issue pertaining to the maintainability of the
KHUNTE
922-WP3666.21.odt
application. Therefore, the impugned order needs to be
interfered with. But, at the same time, the aspect of
inconvenience caused to the respondent cannot be
ignored and he needs to be appropriately compensated
with payment of costs in that regard.
11. In view of the above, the writ petition is
allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside.
The application for amendment of written statement at
Exhibit-C-12 filed by the petitioners is allowed in terms
of the prayer made therein. The amendment shall be
carried out before the Labour Court within two weeks
from today. The present writ petition being allowed is
subject to the petitioners paying costs of Rs.25,000/- to
the respondent within a period of four weeks from
today. The said amount shall be deposited by the
petitioners before the Labour Court within the said
period of time. Upon such deposit, the Labour Court
shall forthwith disburse the amount in favour of the
respondent.
12. It is made clear that if the petitioners fail to
deposit costs as directed in the stipulated period of time,
this order shall stand recalled and the writ petition shall
stand dismissed.
JUDGE
Signed By:GHANSHYAM S
KHUNTE
Signing Date:01.04.2022 12:32
KHUNTE
