1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Rule.

Rule made returnable forthwith.

By consent, matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission.

2. By this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner- first party challenges the order dated 8th August 2012 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Satara below Exhibit 105 in Reference (IDA) No.94 of 2005 rejecting the petitioner's application dated 17th April 2010 for amendment of the written statement.

3. Brief facts of the present matter are, as under:

In the present proceedings, the State of Maharashtra vide its order dated 13th September 2005 made a Reference to the trial court. In the said Reference, the petitioner filed written statement dated 19th September 2006 and thereafter they preferred application below Exhibit 105 for amendment of the written statement. The said application was rejected by the learned Labour Court, Satara on the ground that the petitioner has made the application for amendment of the written statement after the trial commenced. Respondent led evidence of two witnesses. Thereafter, the petitioner also examined their witnesses. At the time of cross-examination of petitioner's witness Mr. C.G. Shahane, the petitioner filed an application for amendment of the written statement. There was delay of more than six years in preferring the application for amendment of the written statement. Hence, it was rejected.

4. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Labour Court failed to consider that the principles of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) are not applicable in the present case in view of Rule 16-A of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules 1957 (the said Rules). He submits that it is specifically stated in Rule 16-A of the said Rules that the Labour Court or Tribunal, may allow at any stage of the proceedings amendments to statements of claims or written statements filed by the parties in response to notices served under Rule 16 to such extent as the Labour Court or as the case may be, Tribunal may consider necessary for the purpose of determining the real issues included in the order of reference.

5. He further submits that even the Apex Court in the matter of Revajeetu Builders and Developers Vs. Narayanaswamy and Sons and Ors. (2009) 10 SCC 84: [2009 (6) ALL MR 986 (S.C.)] held that an amendment application should be allowed, if it is not going to affect the right, title and interest of the opponent. He relies on paragraph Nos.53 and 63 of the said judgment, which read thus;

53. In Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply (1974) 2 SCC 393, A sued B in his individual name but afterward sought leave to amend the plaint to sue as the proprietor of a Hindu Joint Family business. The amendment was granted and the suit was decreed. The High Court, however, reversed the decree observing that the action was brought by a "non-existing person." Reversing the order of the High Court, this Court (per Shah, J, as he then was) made the following oft-quoted observations: (SCC p.871, para 5)

"5. Rules of procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the administration of justice. A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the rules of procedure. The Court always gives leave to amend the pleading of a party, unless it is satisfied that the party Applying, was acting mala fide, or that by his blunder, he had caused injury to his opponent which may not be compensated for by an order of costs. However negligent or careless may have been the first omission and however late the proposed amendment, the amendment may be allowed if it can be made without injustice to the other side. (Emphasis Added)

63. On critically analysing both the English and Indian cases, some basic principles emerge which ought to be taken into consideration while allowing or rejecting the application