Delhi High Court
Satish Sachiv Baba Beldar vs The Management Of All India ... on 25 May, 2009
Author: Ajit Prakash Shah
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA No.243 OF 2009 & C.M. Nos.7655 & 7871 OF 2009
SATISH SACHIV BABA BELDAR ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Deepali Gupta, Adv.
Versus
THE MANAGEMENT OF ALL INDIA CENTRAL PWD (M.R.D.)
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sewa Ram, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL
ORDER
% 25.05.2009
1. The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned order dated
30.3.2009. It is the case of the appellant (original petitioner in the
writ petition) that an amendment to the statement of claim was
wrongly rejected by the Labour Court. As per the
appellant/workman, he was actually appointed in the year 1980 and,
therefore, wanted to amend his statement of claim so as to give the
date of appointment as 23.9.1980. While in the statement of claim
he had stated that his date of confirmation is 30.3.1991. The Labour
Court rejected the petitioner's application for amendment of his
statement of claim. Consequently, a writ petition was filed
challenging the said rejection.
2. The learned single judge vide the impugned order has
upheld the order of the Labour Court primarily on the ground that
the appellant was unable to show that the factum of his being aware
of his date of appointment being 23.9.1980 was not known to him.
As per the learned single judge if this fact was known to the appellant
he ought to have pleaded it in his statement of claim which he had
failed to do. Since the appellant had put a specific date of 30.3.1991
when he was appointed, therefore, as per the learned single judge
permitting the appellant at this late stage to retract from his
admission was not permissible and would mean violation of statutory
provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure.
3. We are unable to agree with this finding of the learned
single judge. As held by the Supreme Court of India in B.K.
Narayan Pillai vs. Parameswaran Pillai; (2000) 1 SCC 712, the
purpose and object of Order VI Rule 17 CPC is to allow either party to
alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as
may be just. The power to allow the amendment is wide and can be
exercised at any stage of the proceedings in the interest of justice on
the basis of the guidelines laid down by the various High Courts and
Supreme Court. It is true that amendment cannot be claimed as a
matter of right and under all circumstances but it is equally true that
the courts while deciding such prayers should not adopt a hyper-
technical approach. Liberal approach should be the general rule.
Technicalities of law should not be permitted to hamper the courts in
administration of justice between the parties. Amendments are
allowed in the pleadings to avoid uncalled for multiplicity of litigation.
4. It is also pertinent to refer to the observations of the
Supreme Court in Baldev Singh Vs. Manohar Singh; 2006 (6) SCC
498 that court should be extremely liberal in granting the prayer for
amendment of pleadings unless serious injustice or irreparable loss
is caused to the other side. In view of the provisions made under
Order VI Rule 17 CPC, it cannot be doubted that wide power and
discretion has been conferred on the court to allow amendment of the
pleadings to a party in such manner and on such terms as it appears
to the court just and proper. The Supreme Court in Usha Bala
Shaheb Swami Vs. Kiran Appso Swami; 2007 (5) SCC 602
observed that from a bare perusal of Order VI Rule 17 CPC, it is clear
that the court is conferred with power, at any stage of the
proceedings, to allow alteration and amendment of the pleadings if it
is of the view that such amendment may be necessary for
determining the real question in controversy between the parties.
The courts should be liberal in granting the prayer for amendment of
pleadings unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused to the
other side or on the ground that the prayer for amendment was not a
bona fide one.
5. In the present case, we fail to understand how the
amendment which is sought by the appellant, if allowed, would cause
irreparable loss or serious injustice to the respondent. Further, this
is not a case where the prayer for amendment was not a bona fide
one. All that the appellant is seeking is to amend his statement of
claim so as to give his date of appointment as 23.9.1980 while in the
statement of claim he has stated that his date of confirmation was
30.3.1991.
6. The appellant joined the respondent on muster roll as
Beldar. The services of the appellant were terminated and the
appellant accordingly raised an industrial dispute. As per the
appellant it was only on 15.10.2008 that the appellant came to know
that the date of actual joining on muster roll with the respondent had
not been specified in the statement of claim and neither the
documents relied on as supplied to his earlier AR have been placed
on record. The said fact and documents being relevant for a proper
determination of the actual controversy between the parties and
consequential grant of relief as sought, the appellant moved an
application for amendment of his statement of claim.
7. We see no reason why the said application ought not to
have been allowed. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the learned
single judge and permit the amendment of the statement of claim as
prayed for by the appellant in his application before the Labour
Court. We may also record that the counsel for the respondent in all
fairness submitted that the said amendment may be allowed subject
to the respondent being permitted to raise whatever legal objections
were available to him to the same on merits of the matter. Needless
to say that it is always open to the respondent to raise whatever
objections and contentions he wishes to on the merits of the matter
in accordance with law.
8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The order of the
learned single judge is set aside. The appellant is permitted to carry
out the amendment to the statement of claim as prayed for. The
pending applications stand disposed of as well. It is ordered
accordingly.
CHIEF JUSTICE
NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL, J.
MAY 25, 2009
'AA'
