( 1 ) HEARD Mr. Gautam M. Joshi, appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mrs. D. T. Shah, learned advocate for the respondent No. 1 so also Ms. Shradhha Trivedi, learned AGP for the respondent No. 2. No one appeared on behalf of the respondent N0. 3 though notice of Rule has been served.

( 2 ) IN the present petition, rule has been issued by this Court on 27th April, 2000. Meanwhile, interim relief has been granted against the operation of the order in question and the rule has been made returnable on 8th August, 2000. On behalf of the respondents, affidavit in reply has been filed on 28th March, 2000. No rejoinder thereto has been filed by the petitioner.

( 3 ) IN the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Gujarat University Services Tribunal in application No. 27/1999 dated 6th March, 2000. The facts of the present petition, in short, are as under : in the year 1988, the first respondent filed Special Civil Application No. 7659 of 1988 before this Court. Said petition was admitted by this Court. Thereafter, in the year 1999, in view of the constitution of the tribunal, said petition was transferred to the tribunal and it came to be renumbered as an application No. 27 of 1999. Said petition was transferred to the tribunal by this court by order dated 28th June, 1999. After transfer of the matter before the tribunal, the respondent No. 1 submitted an application before the tribunal on 6th March, 2000 with a request to allow the proposed amendment which is attached as a schedule to the application for amendment. Said application was moved by the respondent no. 1 on the ground of discrimination amongst similarly situated employees who have been paid the scale of research assistant whereas the respondent No. 1 has not been paid the pay scale inspite of the fact that the respondent no. 1 has discharged similar duty like others. The second ground for amendment was that the respondent no. 1 is claiming salary on the principles of equal pay for equal work on the ground that the respondent no. 1 has done equal work on the sanctioned post. The reasons for making application for amendment after some period was given by the respondent that he is residing at Bhavnagar and he has recently come to know about these facts which are having direct nexus with the issue. It was also the case of the respondent No. 1 before the tribunal that the amendment sought for by the respondent No. 1 was not causing any prejudice to the case of the present petitioner and the amendment is required because of the facts which is likely to take place which would render justice to the parties. The tribunal has jurisdiction under section 8 to decide the dispute or real controversy between the parties. In view of this back ground, the amendment has been moved by the first respondent before the tribunal on 6. 3. 2000 alongwith the schedule. Copy of the said application has been supplied to the petitioner and, thereafter, the petitioner has requested the tribunal to grant some time to file the written reply against the proposed amendment but the tribunal has not granted any time to the petitioner and has allowed the amendment by order dated 6th March, 2000 and the tribunal has also granted time to the petitioner to file detailed reply against the amended petition. Therefore, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 6th March, 2000 before this court only on the ground that there was delay and laches on the part of respondent no. 1 in moving an application for the proposed amendment.

( 4 ) LEARNED advocate Mr. Gautam Joshi appearing for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the tribunal has denied reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to file objection against the proposed amendment; the manner in which the tribunal has proceed amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity. He has submitted that the amendment has been placed on record on 6th March, 2000 and copy thereof has been supplied to the petitioner on t