2015 Supreme(Raj) 1901
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
M.N.Bhandari, J.
Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Limited, Udaipur - Appellant
Versus
Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Karamchari Sangh, Udaipur and Another - Respondent
S.B. Civil writ Petition No. 10127 of 2014.
Decided On : 30-10-2015
Advocates:
For the Petitioner(s):Vinendra Agrawal, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s):V.S. Nain, Advocate.
An Industrial Tribunal has the power to amend a reference under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and such amendment does not change the nature of the dispute unless the parties seek to change their pleading or evidence after the amendment.
Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 10(1) - AMENDMENT OF REFERENCE - RELIANCE ON PLEADING AND EVIDENCE LED PRIOR TO AMENDMENT - CONSENT OF PARTIES - INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL'S ORDER DIRECTING RELIANCE ON PLEADING AND EVIDENCE LED PRIOR TO AMENDMENT OF REFERENCE - VALIDITY - COURT'S ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION.
Fact of the Case:
A dispute between a contractor and its workmen was referred to an Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. After completion of pleadings and evidence, the Tribunal permitted the contractor to seek an amendment in the reference to include the date of retrenchment. The workmen objected to the reliance on the pleading and evidence led prior to the amendment, arguing that a new inning should have been played with fresh pleadings and evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the amendment of the reference did not change the complexion of the dispute and that the Industrial Tribunal was justified in directing reliance on the pleading and evidence led prior to the amendment. The court noted that the workmen had not challenged the terms of the reference initially and that they had not sought to change their pleading or evidence after the amendment.
Issues: Whether the Industrial Tribunal erred in directing reliance on the pleading and evidence led prior to the amendment of the reference.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Industrial Tribunal had the power to amend the reference under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that the amendment did not change the nature of the dispute. The court also held that the workmen had not been prejudiced by the Tribunal's order, as they had not sought to change their pleading or evidence after the amendment.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the workmen's petition challenging the Industrial Tribunal's order.
JUDGMENT
1. - With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is heard finally.
2. By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 20th September, 2013 and 20th May, 2014.
3. It is a case where on a reference, pleading was completed by the parties followed by the evidence. At the stage of final arguments, the Industrial Tribunal permitted to seek amendment in the reference. The reference dated 17th June, 1987 was then amended vide order dated 21st November, 2007. The petitioner herein raised two objections before the o Industrial Tribunal, First is in regard to take the order dated 21st November, 2007 on record. It is mainly on the ground that date of original reference is of 17th June, 1987 whereas it is referred to be 16th June, 1987 in the order dated 21st November, 2007. Learned Counsel for the petitioner is fair enough to forgo the aforesaid objection being technical in nature. It seems to be 5 nothing but a typographical error in the order dated 21st November, 2007 while referring the date of previous order of reference. In fact, vide the order dated 21st November, 2007, the previous reference dated 17th June, 1987 was amended. In view of the above, the challenge to the order dated 20th September, 2013 has not been pressed.
4. The issue now remains in regard to the order dated 20th May, 2014.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that once the reference has been amended, a new inning should not have been played. The respondent Sangh was required to submit statement of claim to be replied by the petitioner followed by evidence. Learned Industrial Tribunal has denied the aforesaid opportunity, rather vide the impugned order dated 20th May, 2014, it is ordered to rely on the pleading as well as evidence led by the parties previously. It is in ignorance of the fact that when the reference has been amended, proceedings would start afresh from the date of amendment in the reference. The pleading as well as evidence cannot be relied.
6. It is further stated that if, at all, the pleading is to be relied by the parties, reliance of the evidence can be with the consent of parties and not otherwise. In view of the above, let the workman submit statement of claim within a week to be replied by the management within another week thereafter. The petitioner would not lead new evidence but should be provided liberty to cross examine the witnesses produced by the employee. With the aforesaid modification, the impugned order may be set aside.
7. A reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Madan Pal Singh v. State of UP & Ors. reported in AIR 2000 SC 537 .
8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and scanned the matter carefully.
9. It is a case where original reference was made on 17th June, 1987 on the following terms, which are quoted hereunder for ready reference : THE SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of M/s Eastern Engineering Enterprises, Udaipur Contractor, M/s Rajasthan Mines & Minerals Ltd. (A Govt, of Rajasthan undertaking). Udaipur in retrenching the 137 workmen of their Rockphosphate Mine is just and legal? If not, what relief are the workmen concerned entitled to?"
10. After the reference, the pleadings were completed by both the parties followed by the evidence. The objection was not initially raised that the reference dated 17th June, 1987 does not contain the date of retrenchment. It is to the surprise of this Court that the Industrial Tribunal thought it proper to get the amendment in the reference. It is settled law that if the terms of the reference narrates about disputes, ancillary question can very well be answered. The pleading by the parties was in consonance to the initial term of reference giving out the dispute. No challenge was made immediately to the terms of the reference. In any case, in pursuance to the order of Tribunal, the Government amended the terms of reference vide its order da
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
