Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pee Cee Cosma Sope Limited Through ... vs Ashok Kumar Tiwari on 1 September, 2025
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:20013
1 MP-2974-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 1 st OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 2974 of 2025
PEE CEE COSMA SOPE LIMITED THROUGH MANAGER VED
PRAKASH DUBEY
Versus
ASHOK KUMAR TIWARI
Appearance:
Shri Alok Katare - learned Counsel for petitioner.
Shri Subodh Pradhan- learned Counsel for respondent.
ORDER
The present misc. petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India has been filed by petitioner/defendant assailing the order 03-12-2024
passed by Labour Court No.2, Gwalior in COC No. 15/A/ID Act/2022
(Reference), whereby the application filed by petitioner under Order 14 Rule
5 of CPC for framing an additional issue, has been rejected.
A few facts necessary for adjudication of this petition as narrated
therein are that respondent- plaintiff filed a statement of claim before the
Industrial Court alleging that he was working as Plant Assistant in petitioner-
Company and on 04-03-2022, he was deployed for unloading tanker No.
GJ12-BV-1200 filled with fertilizer and on weighing the same quantity of
450 kg. was found less and he was caught red-handed in gloves with driver
of tanker and thereafter, he was pressurized to his resignation. Petitioner
filed his reply to the statement of claim and denied allegation of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:20013
2 MP-2974-2025
respondent. On the basis of pleadingsof both the parties as well as reply of
petitioner, the Labour Court framed an issue as to ''whether separation of
respondent Shri Ashok Kumar Tiwari, son of Chandrabhan Tiwari, from
service by employer is legal and proper? if not, what help is respondent
entitled to? and what instructions should be given to employer in this
regard''. Petitioner filed an reply under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC for framing
additional issue,which was rejected by the Labour Court vide impugned
order.
Being dissatisfied by the impugned order, it is contended on behalf of
petitioner that respondent himself has accepted theft by himself and the same
was accepted by the Management of petitioner- on 10th of March, 2022
and later on, respondent was communicated vide letter dated 16-03-2022 and
the fact of theft was also accepted by driver. Allegation regarding
commission of theft by respondent hand in glove with driver was found
proved in enquiry. Placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case
of Ramesh Kumar Jain vs. Pradeep Kumar Jain and Another 2014 (I) MPWN
123, Birla Corporation Litd. Vs. Deputy Labour Commissioner and Another,
2016(3) MPLJ 117 and Nandlal vs. Mangibai 2006 (II) MPWN 28, it is
contended that issues are to be framed as per the pleadings and with an
object to pinpoint real and substantial points of difference. It is the duty as
well as power of Industrial/Labour Court in framing the incidental issue and
determine issue of law first. Application cannot be rejected without assigning
justifiable reasons. Hence, prayed for setting aside the impugned order .
On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent opposed the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:20013
3 MP-2974-2025
contentions of the petitioner and prayed for dismissal of this petition.
After having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of
record, this Court finds that Labour Court has framed an issue as to
''whether separation of respondent Shri Ashok Kumar Tiwari, son of
Chandrabhan Tiwari, from service by the employer is legal and proper? if
not, what help is respondent entitled to? and what instructions should be
given to the employer in this regard''. So far as additional proposed issue
sought for by petitioner is concerned, the Labour Court has held that Court is
not competent to determine the fact as to whether respondent has committed
crime of theft or not because theft is a criminal case and the Court does not
have jurisdiction to determine the facts of criminal nature and if respondent
has committed any theft in petitioner, then for this purpose, petitioner is free
to prosecute respondent for a criminal case.
It is settled principle of law that a defendant's application to frame an
additional issue can be dismissed if it does not arise from the pleadings or is
not necessary for determining the matter in controversy between the parties.
Issues must be framed based on the actual claim and defenses presented in
the pleadings and should be resolved in an affirmative or negative manner to
narrow the dispute. While Order 14 Rule 5 of the CPC empowers the Court
to amend issues or frame additional ones at any stage before a decree, it does
not mandate the creation of issues that are not supported by the pleadings or
are not central to the case, and there is no general entitlement to frame new
issues.
For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:20013
4 MP-2974-2025
Labour Court has framed the issue on the basis of respondent/plaintiff's
evidence which is affirmative in nature and is covered on the basis of
pleadings/reply of defendant/petitioner. There was no need to frame an
additional issue. Therefore, the Labour Court has not committed any error in
rejecting application filed by petitioner under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC.
Accordingly, petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
HIRDESH)
JUDGE
MKB
