Late-Stage Amendment of Pleadings in Labour Cases Permissible for Complete Adjudication, Despite Lack of 'Due Diligence': Karnataka High Court - 2025-09-02

Karnataka High Court Allows Belated Amendment to Pleadings in Wonderla Labour Dispute, Prioritizing Adjudication Over Procedural Delays

Bengaluru, Karnataka – In a significant ruling on labour law procedure, the Karnataka High Court has set aside orders from an Industrial Tribunal that had rejected applications by dismissed workmen of M/s Wonderla Holidays Ltd. to amend their pleadings. Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde, presiding over a batch of 20 writ petitions, held that ensuring the complete adjudication of a dispute can outweigh the strict procedural requirement of "due diligence" for late amendments, especially when the facts sought to be introduced are undisputed.

Case Background

The case involves a group of workmen challenging their dismissal by the management of Wonderla Holidays Ltd. The employer had filed applications under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, seeking approval for the dismissals. During the proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal, after evidence was recorded and the employer had concluded its arguments, the workmen filed applications to amend their statement of objections.

The proposed amendment sought to introduce a crucial plea: the pendency of another industrial dispute (AID No. 25/15) at the time of their dismissal. The workmen argued that this existing dispute was relevant to the maintainability of the employer's application under Section 33(2)(b). The Industrial Tribunal, however, rejected these applications, citing reasons such as the "fag end" timing of the filing, a lack of due diligence, and potential prejudice to the employer. Aggrieved by this rejection, the workmen approached the High Court.

Arguments of the Parties

For the Workmen (Petitioners):

- The petitioners' counsel, Sri Ravi Shankar B, argued that the amendment was essential to adjudicate the real controversy.

- He contended that the facts sought to be introduced—the pendency of proceeding AID No. 25/15—were a matter of record and not disputed by the employer.

- It was submitted that procedural rules for Industrial Tribunals, governed by Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act, are more flexible than the strict requirements of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which applies to civil courts.

For the Management (Respondent):

- The respondent’s counsel, Kum Prachi Shetty, vehemently opposed the petitions, presenting an extensive list of judgments to support her arguments.

- She argued that the workmen were not diligent, having missed several earlier opportunities to raise this plea.

- The applications were filed merely to "plug the loopholes" pointed out during the employer's final arguments.

- The management contended that allowing the amendment at such a late stage would take away a valid defence and cause significant prejudice.

- A technical objection was also raised that the applications were not supported by a duly sworn affidavit as required by the Karnataka Industrial Dispute Rules.

Court's Analysis and Precedents

Justice Hegde began his analysis by acknowledging the 2002 amendment to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, which introduced a proviso requiring a party to prove that "in spite of due diligence," the matter could not have been raised before the trial commenced. However, referencing the Supreme Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association, T.N. vs Union of India , he noted, "The object is to prevent frivolous applications which are filed to delay the trial."

The Court distinguished the procedural rigour of civil suits from the context of labour disputes. It emphasized that the primary goal is to adjudicate the "real controversy."

"The whole object of allowing amendment is to ensure the adjudication of the real controversy between the parties. If the Court feels that the averments which are sought to be incorporated by way of an amendment are necessary for complete adjudication... then the Court has to allow the application."

The Court observed that the pendency of the prior dispute (AID No. 25/2015) was an undisputed fact and could have a significant bearing on the outcome. Rejecting the amendment would prevent a complete and just decision. On the argument that the amendment was intended to support evidence already led without a pleading, the Court held there is no "universal proposition" against it, and this was an appropriate case to allow it.

Addressing the employer’s claims of prejudice, the Court clarified:

"Merely because the amendment is allowed, the contention of the employer is not taken away. The workmen are required to establish their contention and the employer is required to establish its contention."

The Court also dismissed the technical objection regarding the lack of an affidavit, noting that an earlier application had been properly supported, and to prevent further litigation cycles, the defect could be overlooked as the facts were undisputed.

Final Decision

The Karnataka High Court allowed all writ petitions, setting aside the Industrial Tribunal's orders. It directed that the workmen's applications for amendment be allowed. The employer has been granted the opportunity to file a rejoinder to the amended statements.

The Court made it clear that its decision was confined to the question of allowing the amendment and did not reflect any finding on the merits of the workmen's defence, which the Tribunal must adjudicate independently.