The Writ Court has wide powers to do complete justice between the parties and should allow all amendments necessary for determining the real dispute between the parties.

KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application moved by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC to amend the prayer paragraphs of the existing writ petition. The sole reason for seeking amendment in the present petition given in Para 4 of the application is that the present amendment is being sought by the petitioner after the incorrectness in the prayer paras was pointed out by the Court. The petitioner after having come to know about the infirmity in the prayer paras took decision to move the present application for amendment. It would be appropriate to give brief background of facts which led the petitioner to file the present application. The present petition is filed against the ex- parte award dated 4. 4. 1997 passed by the Labour Court against the petitioner on a dispute raised by respondent No. 1/workman against his termination by the management. The petitioner was proceeded ex-parte on account of non-appearance and the petitioner could come to know about the ex-parte award only on 24. 12. 1997. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC seeking setting aside of the ex-parte award dated 4. 4. 1997. The petitioner in its application under Order 9 Rule 13 has stated that the petitioner could come to know about the award only on 24. 12. 1997 and had moved the said application within 30 days from the date of knowledge of the ex-parte award after carrying out the inspection of the Court file on 17. 1. 1998. The labour Court had dismissed the application of the petitioner vide order dated 2. 2. 1998 mainly on the ground that the Labour Court became functus officio after the expiry of the period of 30 days from the date of publication of the award. Aggrieved with the said order of the Labour Court, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the said order dated 2. 2. 1998 and for setting aside the ex-parte award dated 4. 4. 1997. In the body of the writ petition besides challenging the award on merits, the main attack of the petitioner is on the decision of the Labour Court dated 2. 2. 1998 whereby the application of the petitioner was dismissed under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC. Rule in this matter was issued vide order dated 25. 5. 2000 and the same was directed to be heard along with C. W. No. 6389/1998. Vide order dated 23. 8. 2005, this court after placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2004 LLR 1095 entitled Sangham Tape Co. Vs. Hansraj held that C. W. No. 6389/1998 was disposed of after placing reliance on the earlier view of the Supreme Court reported in (2001) 10 SCC 534 entitled Anil Sood Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour court. This Court, therefore, vide order dated 15. 09. 2005, fixed the matter for final disposal in view of the settled legal position of the Tribunal/labour court becoming functus officio where the application for setting aside the ex- parte award is filed beyond the period of 30 days after publication of the award.

( 2 ) IT is not in dispute that in the present case, ex-parte award has been passed by the Labour Court against the petitioner vide order dated 4. 4. 1997 and the petitioner had moved an application for setting aside the ex-parte award after the expiry of 30 days period from the date of publication of the award and as per Section 17-A of. D. Act and in view of the settled legal position, the said application of the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13 was not maintainable.

( 3 ) THE petitioner, thus, in the present case was aggrieved by two orders. e. , dated 4. 4. 1997 whereby the ex-parte award was passed by the Labour Court against the petitioner and secondly, by an order dated 2. 2. 1998 whereby the application of the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13 was dismissed. Although the petitioner had filed the present petition in February 1998 without any loss of time but the petitioner in the prayer paragraphs confined its relief against the impugned order dated 2. 2. 1998 and not the ex-pa