Back
2023 Supreme(Bom) 1816
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Milind N.Jadhav, J.
P. D. Hinduja National Hospital And Medical Research Centre - Appellant
Versus
Employees State Insurance Corporation - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 1880 of 2022
Decided On : 09-10-2023
Abhishek Ingale, Advocate, Pradeep Kumar, Advocate, P.M.Palshikar, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Amendments to pleadings in legal proceedings must focus on factual matters and cannot include legal arguments or citations, as established by the court's interpretation of the Employees' State Insurance Act.
Headnote:
AMENDMENT - EMPLOYEES' STATE INSURANCE ACT - Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, Sections 1, 2, 8 - The court discussed the applicability of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, particularly focusing on the definitions and coverage of the Act. It emphasized that amendments to pleadings should only include factual assertions and not legal arguments or citations. The court upheld the ESI Court's decision to allow certain amendments while rejecting others that were deemed contrary to the record, thereby influencing the ongoing adjudication of the original application.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a hospital, challenged the applicability of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, to its Kitchen/Food Services Department. The hospital sought to amend its original application to include additional facts that were inadvertently omitted.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the ESI Court had correctly allowed some amendments while rejecting others that were merely legal submissions or contrary to the existing record. The court agreed with the ESI Court's reasoning and upheld its order.
Issues: Whether the proposed amendments to the original application were permissible under the Employees' State Insurance Act, and whether they would change the nature of the cause of action.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that amendments to pleadings must be based on factual assertions rather than legal arguments or citations. It affirmed that the ESI Court's discretion in allowing or rejecting amendments should be respected unless there is a clear error.
Final Decision: The court sustained the ESI Court's order, allowing certain amendments and directing the ESI Court to decide the original application within six months, while keeping all parties' contentions open for future consideration.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. Heard Mr. Ingale, learned Advocate for Petitioners and Mr. Palshikar, learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission itself by consent of the parties.
3. The present Writ Petition takes exception to the impugned order dtd. 14/9/2017 passed below Exhibit - 25 in Application (ESI) No.15 of 2011 filed in the Employees Insurance Court at Mumbai (for short "ESI Court"). Application below Exhibit - 25 was filed for seeking amendment to the original Application (ESI) No.15 of 2011.
4. Petitioner filed original Application for adjudication as to whether the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short "the said Act") would be applicable to its entire hospital or whether it would be applicable to one of its unit in the hospital namely Kitchen / Food Services Department. In view of notices which were received by Petitioner from the Respondent - Corporation, Petitioner - Hospital filed Application for seeking amendment on the ground that certain material and essential facts which are inadvertently left out while filing the Application at the inception were to be added. The Schedule of amendment is at page No.24 of the Petition. With the able assistance of Mr. Ingale, I have perused the Schedule of amendment.
5. Mr. Ingale would submit that the impugned order allows the amendment in respect of paragraph Nos.2A to 2D and amendment in respect of paragraph No.8A to 8K i.e. upto page No.28 of the Petition. He would submit that paragraph No.8L to paragraph No.8Y, except paragraph No.8W has been denied and therefore he is aggrieved with the impugned order.
6. I have heard Mr. Palshikar, learned Advocate for Respondent - Corporation and perused the impugned order. It is seen that principal Application has been filed by Petitioner - Hospital challenging the coverage of its Kitchen / Food Services Department under the provisions of the said Act and the matter is to be decided pursuant to an earlier order of this Court remanding the matter for trial afresh.
7. On the proposed amendment it is seen that the ESI Court has after perusal of the Schedule rejected some of the amendments as alluded to herein above on the ground that those amendment which are rejected merely plead submissions on behalf of the Petitioner - Hospital and the applicable statute and provisions of law.
8. I have carefully perused the findings returned by the learned ESI Court in paragraph Nos.7 and 8 of the impugned order. After perusing the Schedule of amendment and the relevant paragraphs which are covered in paragraph No.8 of the said order, I have no doubt in my mind that there is any ambiguity or discrepancy in passing the said order. On the basis of the Schedule of amendment placed before the ESI Court, the proposed amendment undoubtedly seeks to now draw a distinction between the canteen and the separate cafeteria situated on the ground floor of the hospital. Such an improvement therefore cannot be allowed to be substituted.
9. Mr. Palshikar would submit that if such an amendment is allowed, it would undoubtedly change the nature of the cause of action. Though I have seen the findings returned in paragraph No.8, I will not like to comment on the merits of the case so as to affect the judgment and disposition of the original Application (ESI) No.15 of 2011 before the ESI Court.
10. Further, I am of the opinion that the amendment in the Schedule which has been denied are mere submissions, either on facts or of law and therefore do not warrant inclusion in the original Application (ESI) filed by Petitioner. Needless to state that Petitioner will not be precluded from arguing the same, however, if available to the Petitioner and strictly in accordance with law at the time of final hearing of the Application.
11. Another ground for rejecting the amendment partly is with respect to the statutory provisions and the citations and therefore I see no reason
