The duty of the court to frame proper issues based on the pleadings of the parties and the court's power to frame additional issues necessary for determining the matters in controversy between the parties.

JUDGMENT

B.S. Walia, J. - Revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for setting aside order dated 01.06.2018 (Annexure P-7) passed by the learned Labour Court-II, Faridabad allowing the application filed by the respondent/defendant for framing of additional issues.

2. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Labour Court-II, Faridabad framed the following issues vide order dated 16.10.2017 (Annexure P-4) and fixed the case for evidence of the plaintiff for 06.12.2017.

"1. Whether the termination of the services of workman Sh. Tota Ram is illegal, if so, to what relief he is entitled? OPW.

2. Whether the present claim statement is not maintainable, as alleged? OPM.

3. Relief."

Thereafter, the petitioner got examined himself as WW1 on 06.12.2017. The respondent-Employer/Management got deferred the petitioners cross-examination for 01.02.2018. After cross-examining the petitioner, the respondent-Employer/Management moved an application on 19.03.2018 for framing of two additional issues by stating in para No. 4 of the application that it had filed the written statement on 04.09.2017 taking up the plea in para No.1 of the preliminary objections that the Unit was closed w.e.f. 23.11.2016 as per the provisions of Section 25 (FF) of the Act and payment was also made to the petitioner/claimant as per the provisions of Section 25 (FFF) of the Act and that the amount of cheque which was paid towards full and final settlement to the petitioner/claimant was debited from the account of the respondent-Employer/Management.

3. Reply was filed to the application by the petitioner on 16.04.2018 taking up the stand that the application had been filed by the respondent-Employer/Management just to delay the proceedings and the application was not maintainable especially when the evidence of the workman had already been recorded. In reply to the contents of Para No.4 of the application, the petitioner specifically stated that in Para No.1 of the preliminary objection of the written statement, the respondentEmployer/Management had taken an objection that the claim application under Section 2A (ii) of the Act was not maintainable in the eyes of law and in respect thereto, the Labour Court had already framed issue No.2 as to "whether the present claim statement is not maintainable as alleged?". The petitioner also took up the plea that the respondent-Employer/Management nowhere pleaded in the written statement that the Factory had been closed.

4. Learned counsel contended that the learned Labour Court-II, Faridabad erred in framing the additional issues by overlooking the rejoinder to the written statement wherein the petitioner had categorically stated that the respondent-Employer/Management had not closed down the Factory in routine rather the same was with the intention to terminate the work as well as services of the petitioner/workman under the pretext of closure. In other words, the petitioner had not denied the closure rather had challenged justification for the closure, therefore, the proper issue which was required to be framed was "whether the closure of Unit by the respondent-Employer is justified or not?"

5. Likewise, the petitioner had categorically stated in the rejoinder that the amount in cheque was received by the workman under protest, besides, respondent-Employer/Management had nowhere pleaded in the written statement that closure benefits were paid, therefore, without such pleadings, issues framed by the learned Labour Court-II, Faridabad, were wrong and illegal. Besides, the learned Tribunal/Labour Court had framed the additional issues without taking into account the fact that the petitionerworkman had examined himself as WW1 before the date of application for recasting of issues, therefore, the impugned order for framing of additional issues ought not to have been passed.

6. The learned Labour Court-II, passed the impugned order by observing that perusal of paragraph No.2