IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that amendments to pleadings in Labour Court proceedings should be allowed liberally to serve the interests of justice, even if procedural errors occur.

JUDGMENT :

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

1. Heard the parties.

2. This Writ Petition has been filed under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayer for issue of writ (s)/order (s)/direction(s) to quash and set aside the order dated 08.05.2023 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur in I.D. Case No. 02 of 2018 whereby and where under, the Labour Court, Jamshedpur allowed the petition dated 30.06.2022 filed by the respondent no.3- workman under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on erroneous findings that the petitioner-management has not examined any witness.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the respondent no.3-workman filed an industrial dispute under Section 2 (A) (2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 as amended by the Industrial Dispute (Amendment) Act, 2010 with a prayer to set aside the order of his illegal termination from the services by the Management-Writ petitioner along with reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of services with all benefits.

4. In the said I.D. Case No. 2 of 2018 one witness of the applicant-workman in the Labour Court, Jamshedpur has been examined, cross-examined and discharged and from the side of the Management, one witness has been examined and cross-examination of him has been done in part. During his examination-in-chief, witness has proved certain documents.

5. When the matter stood thus; on 07.07.2020, the respondent no. 3 filed a petition to amend his pleading by incorporating the following amendment “That the Workman due to the stigma attached to his profile arising due to the illegal order of termination by the Management which is under challenge and non-issuance of proper relieving letter by the Management, has not been under gainful employment starting from June 2015 to July 2015 and then from April 2015 till February 2022 and is therefore entitled for back wages for that period from the Management”

6. The Labour Court, Jamshedpur allowed the said prayer by amending of the pleadings but it appears that inadvertently, it has been mentioned in the order dated 08.05.2023 that the management has not examined any witness hence, the question of prejudice to the management by way of amendment of the pleadings does not arise.

7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Labour Court, Jamshedpur has committed gross illegality by observing that no witness has been examined though in fact, the examination in chief of one of the witness of the management has been completed and certain documents was proved by the sole management witness examined in the case so far and even the sole witness of the management examined so far has been cross-examined in part but because of delaying tactics adopted by the respondent no.3 of this writ petition, no cross-examination of the sole management witness examined so far, before the labour court has yet been completed. Relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vibyabai & Ors. vs. Padmalatha & Anr. reported in (2009) 2 SCC 409, paragraph no.10 and 11 of which reads as under:-

“10. By reason of the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 2002 (Act 22 of 2002), Parliament inter alia inserted a proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code, which reads as under:

“Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.”

It is couched in a mandatory form. The court's jurisdiction to allow such an application is taken away unless the conditions precedent therefor are satisfied viz. it must come to a conclusion that in spite of due diligence the parties could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial.

11. From the order passed by the learned trial Judge, it is evident that the respondents had not been able to fulfil the said precondition. The question, th