Back
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Sujoy Paul, J.
Army Public School, Morar v. Ramdhan Sharma
Writ Petition No.4753 of 2012 (Gwalior) : against order dated 31.5.2012, passed by Labour Court in Case No.4-A/I.D. Act/10; Decided on 23.7.2014.
Held : The amendment shows that employer intended to strengthen his pleadings and clarify the aspect of ‘appropriate Government’. This is settled in law that at the time of deciding amendment application, the Court below is not required to examine the merits of the said application .... The strict principle flowing from CPC cannot be made applicable in industrial adjudication. AIR 2007 SC 1663 referred to. AIR 1998 SC 617 distinguished.
[Para 8
Section 11(3) of the Act makes it clear that provisions of CPC are borrowed to a limited extent. Thus, proviso to Order 6 rule 17 CPC cannot be made applicable in industrial adjudication. The amendment needs to be considered as per broad principles. It is to be seen whether amendment is necessary for lawful adjudication of the matter and whether it will cause any prejudice to the other side. In the present case, in my opinion, by applying those principles, the amendment is necessary and if it is allowed, it will not cause any prejudice to the other side.
The rejection of amendment application on the ground that the aspect regarding which Government is appropriate Government cannot be gone into is incorrect and liable to be interferred with.
In nutshell, I am unable to hold that the amendment application was either malicious or untenable. If amendment would have been allowed, there would have been no violation of section 10(4) of the Act. No prejudice will be caused to workman if amendment is allowed. Amendment is necessary because the objection raised in the said application goes to the root of the matter. In this view of the matter, the Labour Court has erred in rejecting the application by applying strict principles flowing from provisions to Order 6 rule 17 CPC. The Court below has failed to appreciate the scope of section 10(4) of the Act.
(2) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 -- S.11(3) -- scope of -- provisions of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 -- are borrowed to limited extent. [Paras 9 & 10
(3) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 -- Ss.10(4), 2(a), 2(j) and 2(s) -- industrial dispute -- referred to Labour Court by State Government -- objection regarding appropriate Government -- is matter of incidental thereto -- Labour Court has jurisdiction to decide any matters incidental thereto -- Labour Court can also examine as to which Government is appropriate Government. AIR 1963 SC 569, AIR 1961 SC 284, 1989 Supp.(1) SCC 347, 1991 (Vol.63) I.F. and L.R. 222, 1989 (Vol.58) I.F. and L.R. 911 and AIR 1953 SC 53 referred to. [Paras 10 to 16
¼1½ flfoy izfdz;k lafgrk] 1908 & vk-6 fu-17] ijarqd & dk ykxw gksuk & vkS|ksfxd fookn & jkT; ljdkj )kjk Je U;k;ky; dks funsZf’kr & vfHkopuksa dh lkeF;Z vkSj leqfpr ljdkj dk igyw Li”V djus ds fy, & fyf[kr dFkuksa esa la’kks/ku ds fy, vkosnu & vkosnu dk xq.kkxq.k ij ijh{k.k djuk visf{kr ugha & vkns’k 6 fu;e 17 dk ijarqd vkS|ksfxd U;k;fu.kZ;u esa ykxw ugha fd;k tk ldrkA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % la’kks/ku ls nf’kZr gS fd fu;kstd dk vius vfHkopuksa dh lkeF;Z vkSj leqfpr ljdkj ds igyw dks Li”V djuk vk’kf;r gSA fof/k esa ;g fu/kkZfjr gS fd la’kks/ku vkosnu dk fofu’p;u djrs le;] fupys U;k;ky; dks ml vkosnu dk xq.kkxq.k ij ijh{k.k djuk visf{kr ugha gSA vkS|ksfxd U;k;fu.kZ;u esa fl-iz-la- ls vfrfu;efu”B fl)kar fudkydj ykxw ugha fd, tk ldrs gSA , vkb vkj 2007 ,l lh 1663 fufnZ”VA , vkb vkj 1998 ,l lh 617 izHksfnrA
vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 11¼3½ ;g Li”V djrh gS fd fl-iz-la- ds mica/k ,d lhfer lhek rd x`ghr fd, x, gSaA bl izdkj] vkns’k 6 fu;e 17 dk ijarqd vkS|ksfxd U;k;fu.kZ;u esa ykxw ugha fd;k tk ldrkA la’kks/ku ij O;kid fl)kar ds vuqlkj fopkj djuk vko’;d gSA ;g ns[kuk gksrk gS fd D;k la’kks/ku ekeys ds fof/kiw.kZ U;k;fu.kZ;u ds fy, vko’;d gS vkSj D;k ;g vU; i{k dks dksbZ izfrdwy izHkko igq¡pk,xkA bl izdj.k esa] esjh jk; esa] mu fl)karksa dks ykxw djus ls] la’kks/ku vko’;d gS vkSj ;fn mls eatwj fd;k tkrk gS] ;g vU; i{k dks dksbZ izfrdwy izHkko ugha igq¡pk,xkA
la’kks/ku vkosnu bl vk/kkj ij ukeatwj fd;k tkuk fd dkSu&lh ljdkj leqfpr ljdkj gS] dh tk¡p ugha dh tk ldrh] ;g vuqfpr gS vkSj gLr{ksi ;ksX; gSA
la{ksi esa eS ;g fu.kZ; djus esa vleFkZ g¡w fd la’kks/ku vkosnu ;k rks fo)s”kiw.kZ Fkk ;k pykus ;ksX; ugha FkkA ;fn la’kks/ku vkosnu eatwj fd;k x;k gksrk] vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 10¼4½ dk mYya?ku ugha gksrkA ;fn la’kks/ku eatwj fd;k tkrk gS rc deZdkj ij izfrdwy izHkko ugha igq¡psxkA la’kks/ku vko’;d gS D;ksafd ml vkosnu esa mBkbZ xbZ vkifr ekeys dh tM+ rd tkrh gSA fo”k; ds bl n`f”Vdks.k ls] Je U;k;ky; us fl-iz-la- ds vkns’k 6 fu;e 17 vfrfu;efu”V fl)kar fudkydj mUgsa ykxw dj vkosnu [kkfjt djus esa =qfV dh gSA fupys U;k;ky; us vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 10¼4½ dh O;kfIr dks le>us esa =qfV dh gSA
¼iSjk 16 ,oa 17½
¼2½ vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 & /kkjk 11¼3½ dh O;kfIr & flfoy izfdz;k lafgrk] 1908 ds mica/k & lhfer lhek rd x`ghr fd, x, gSA
¼iSjk 9 ,oa 10½
¼3½ vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 & /kkjk 10¼4½] 2¼d½] 2¼¥½ rFkk 2¼/k½ & vkS|ksfxd fookn & jkT; ljdkj )kjk Je U;k;ky; dks funsZf’kr & leqfpr ljdkj ds laca/k esa vkifr & fo”k; mlls vkuq”kafxd gS & Je U;k;ky; dks mlls vkuq”kafxd fdlh izdkj ds fo”k; dk fofu’p;u djus dh vf/kdkfjrk gS & Je U;k;ky; ;g Hkh ijh{k.k dj ldrk gS fd dkSu&lh ljdkj leqfpr ljdkj gSA , vkb vkj 1963 ,l lh 569] , vkb vkj 1961 ,l lh 284] 1989 lIyh- ¼1½ ,l lh lh 347] 1991 ¼[kaM 63½ vkb ,Q rFkk ,y vkj 222] 1989 ¼[kaM 58½ vkb ,Q rFkk ,y vkj 911 rFkk , vkb vkj 1953 ,l lh 53 fufnZ”VA
¼iSjk 10 ls 16½
1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenges the order dated 31.5.2012 whereby application for amendment preferred by the petitioner-employer is rejected by the Labour Court.
2. The services of the respondent were terminated by the petitioner Army Public School. The respondent raised an industrial dispute which, in turn, was referred to the Labour Court by the State Government. The respondent filed its statement of claim before the Labour Court. In turn, the employer filed his written statement. Thereafter, when matter was at the stage of evidence, the employer filed an application under Order 6 rule 17 CPC (Annexure P-8) on 25.12.2011. It was opposed by workman by filing reply. By impugned order, the said application is rejected.
3. The Labour Court rejected the application by holding that the amendment is filed after commencement of trial and, therefore, it cannot be allowed. It is further held that if averments of amendment application are accepted, it will change the nature of the case. The present dispute is sent by M.P. Government and if amendment is accepted, the appropriate Government will be Central Government. Thus, acceptance of amendment will result into automatic cancellation of reference. Thus, in the opinion of Labour Court, it amounts to change of nature of the case which cannot be allowed.
4. Criticizing this order, Shri Chetan Kanungo, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the strict principles of CPC are not applicable in industrial adjudication. Certain provisions of CPC are borrowed under section 11(3) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act). He relied on an unreported judgment of Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition No.19333/2012 (M/s. Automobile Service Centre v. S.Selvaraj), to submit that amendment needs to be dealt with leniently.
5. The stand of Shri Vivek Jain, learned counsel for the workman is that belated amendment is malicious. In written statement, the employer had taken a stand that it is governed under Society Registration Act. The employer is not getting any financial aid from Central Government, nor it is a public body. The contract between workman and employer is a service contract. The employer school is a private school. By way of amendment, a ‘U’ turn is taken by stating that the land, building etc. are provided by Central Government. The land and building provided is through Cantonment Board and the appropriate Government is Central Government. Shri Jain submits that complete somersault is not permissible. He relied on AIR 1998 SC 617 (M.C.Mehta v. Union of India and others), in this regard. In addition, it is submitted that as per section 2(a), for petitioner Central Government is not the appropriate Government. By placing reliance on section 10(4) of I.D. Act, it is urged that the Labour Court cannot travel beyond the reference and, therefore, it cannot adjudicate whether the State Government is the appropriate Government. He submits that Labour Court assumed jurisdiction because of the reference. Thus, it cannot decide whether the State Government is the ‘appropriate Government’. If amendment is allowed, Labour Court would be required to decide whether State Government is appropriate Government which will be beyond the scope of jurisdiction of Labour Court. On these grounds, he supported the Labour Court’s order.
6. No other point is pressed by the learned counsel for the parties.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. In the written statement filed by the employer it was stated that the employer is not getting any financial aid from the Central Government and it does not fall within the public body. However, as per section 2(a) of the Act, the Central Government may be an ‘appropriate Government’ if the industry is carried on by or under the authority of Central Government. By way of amendment application, the employer intended to add that for the employer, ‘appropriate Government’ is Cent
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
