The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for due diligence in seeking amendments to pleadings after the commencement of trial, as mandated by the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, and the limitations on amendments that would change the nature of the claim or the defences of the opposing party.

ORDER :

The above Writ Petition is filed challenging the order dated 21.9.2021 passed on I.A.No.3 in Application No.18/2019 by the II Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Labour Court’).

2. It is the case of the Petitioner, who appears as party-in-person that, he was employed with a company managed by the Respondents under the name and style M/s Amagi Media Pvt. Ltd., from 5.8.2010. That he tendered his resignation in the month of November, 2015 giving three months’ notice period from 1.11.2015 to 31.1.2016 and he was issued relieving letter on 1.2.2016.

3. On 19.4.2017 the Petitioner filed Application No.8/2017 (renumbered as 18/2019) under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'ID Act') against the Respondents before the Labour Court seeking for the following reliefs :

"(a) To pay the arrears of consultancy fixed fee as per the consultancy letter issued to the applicant dated 19.10.2015 at the fixed compensation of Rs.2,08,333/- (Rupees Two Lakhs eight thousand and three hundred thirty three only) with effect from dated 01.02.2016 to till the date of disposal of this application due to the applicant.

(b) To pay the interest @ 18% on the total amount due as fixed consultancy fee to the applicant from the due date i.e. dated 01.02.2016 to till the date of disposal of this application.

(c) To direct the respondents to issue grant notice for 2000 stock/shares options that entitle the applicant to acquire 2000 fully vested Class A Equity Share in the company (Amagi Media Labs Pvt Ltd) at Rs.10/- exercise price."

4. The Application filed by the Petitioner was resisted by the Respondents on various grounds, inter alia, that the Application under Section 33(C)(2) of the ID Act was not maintainable; that the Petitioner was not a workman; that the Application has been filed against the officers of the company and not the company; that the officers not being the employers cannot be made as parties to the Application or that the provisions of Section 33(C)(2) of the ID Act cannot be invoked against the officers of the company. Various other defences were also taken by the Respondents alleging all mala fides as well as other defences on the merits of the claim made by the Petitioner.

5. In view of the specific defences taken by the Respondents, vide the statement of objections filed before the Labour Court, the Petitioner filed a rejoinder, wherein in the cause title to the rejoinder, the Respondents were shown different from how they were arrayed in the original Application. The Petitioner also filed his evidence affidavit by showing the Respondents different from as shown in the original Application.

6. The Petitioner was specifically cross-examined by the Counsel for the Respondents before the Labour Court regarding this aspect of the matter i.e., regarding non maintainability of the original Application against the Respondents. Subsequent to the cross-examination of the Petitioner, the Petitioner sought to adduce further evidence, at which stage he filed IA.3 under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CPC’) and Section 11 of the ID Act to amend the original Application. The amendments sought vide IA.3 were with regard to description of the Respondents as also certain additional prayers.

7. The Application for amendment was vehemently opposed by the Respondents and objections to IA.3 were also filed. The Labour Court, vide its order dated 21.9.2021 dismissed IA.3. Being aggrieved, the present Writ Petition is filed.

8. It is the contention of the Petitioner that the amendments are necessary for consideration of the original Application; that the same was filed at the earliest point of time without any delay; that the delay in filing IA.3 was due to the fact that the Respondents have sought for transfer of the proceedings in the Labour Court and had also petitioned this Court regarding transfer of the proceedings; that