The main legal point established is that the Industrial Court's power to permit amendment of the memo of revision petition is limited under section 44 of the MRTU & PULP act, and the statutory scheme does not provide for such amendment.

JUDGMENT

Manish Pitale, J. - Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the writ petition finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the rival parties.

3. By this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged order dated 16/09/2019, passed by the Industrial Court at Nagpur, whereby an application at Exhibit-30, seeking amendment of the memo of revision petition has been rejected, on the ground that the Industrial Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction under section 44 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'MRTU & PULP act') does not have the power to permit amendment of the memo of revision petition.

4. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed complaint under the provisions of the MRTU & PULP act before the Labour Court contending that their services were wrongly terminated by the petitioners, as there was violation of sections 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes act, 1947. The reliefs sought by respondent Nos.1 and 2 were opposed by the petitioners, but by judgment and order dated 19/12/2007, the Labour Court allowed the complaint and directed respondent Nos.1 and 2 to be reinstated in service with full back wages and continuity of service. aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Labour Court, the petitioners filed revision petition before the Industrial Court, wherein interim stay of the order of the Labour Court was granted. Subsequently, by judgment and order dated 02/05/2009, the Industrial Court allowed the revision petition and set aside the order of the Labour Court. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 challenged the said order of the Industrial Court by filing Writ Petition No.4903 of 2009.

5. The said writ petition came up for final hearing before this Court and by judgment and order dated 04/04/2019, the petition was partly allowed and the judgment and order dated 02/05/2009 of the Industrial Court was set aside. The proceedings in the revision petition were restored before the Industrial Court and the parties were directed to appear before the Industrial Court on 02/05/2019. all contentions of the parties on merits other than the jurisdictional aspect were kept open. This was for the reason that the Industrial Court in the first instance had allowed the revision petition of the petitioners on the ground that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2.

6. after the said revision petition stood restored before the Industrial Court, the petitioners filed the aforesaid application at Exhibit-30, seeking amendment of the revision memo and permission to file certain documents. By this application, the petitioners sought to bring on record subsequent developments in the matter, in order to plead that with passage of time and the events that had occurred during the pendency of the proceedings before the Industrial Court and this Court, no posts were available, wherein respondent Nos.1 and 2 could be accommodated, even if the order of the Labour Court was to be upheld. The said application was opposed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2. It was contended on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 that there was no power available with the Industrial Court to allow such an amendment and further that the petitioners could have placed the said subsequent events before this Court during the pendency of the aforesaid Writ Petition No.4903 of 2009.

7. as noted above, by the impugned order dated 16/09/2019, the Industrial Court dismissed the application, holding that there was no power available with the Industrial Court, while considering the revision petition, to grant amendment of the memo of revision petition, so as to allow the amendment as sought by the petitioners.

8. Mr. S.S.Ghate, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the Industrial Court erred in holding that there was no power available under the provisions of the MRTU & PULP act with the Industr