Kay Jay Autu Pvt. Ltd. vs Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court and Another

S.K. Jain, J.—On May 19, 1983, Udai Ram, contesting respondent herein was appointed as Machine Operator by the petitioner Company. He met with an accident on March 22, 1986 thereby suffering an injury on his left hand. Thereafter he absented himself from duty. When he did not turn up his services were terminated on April 21, 1986. He issued demand notice on April 26, 1986. The matter having been referred to the Labour Court, that Court became ceased of the matter. During the pendency of that proceedings, the Management filed an application (Annexure P/1) that in case the workman appears with a fitness certificate, he will be allowed to join duty. The workman joined his duty on February 6, 1987 accordingly. Written statement was filed on behalf of the Management on August 5, 1987. On October 9, 1989, an application was filed by the Management seeking amendment of the written statement in order to bring on record the circumstances that had, supervened during the pendency of the proceeding. This petition was contested on behalf of the workman and then after hearing the parties, Learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Disputes Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Gurgaon rejected that application on October 4, 1991. Through this revision petition, the said order has been challenged on behalf of the Management A perusal of the application dated October 9, 1989 for amendment shows that the Management wanted to bring following facts on record of the case through amendment:-

(i) that the applicant was an engineering unit and was an ancillary of M/s. Hero Honda Limited, Dharuhera and had big press machines used for manufacturing sheet metal components;

(ii) that the workman during the course of his employment had sustained injury due to which he has become permanently partially disabled and therefore was not fit to continue to serve the applicant. He had been absenting from duty on account of ill-health and had become incapable of performing his duties and under the circumstances he was not entitled to claim any relief in the proceedings.

Learned counsel for the respondent has taken me through the Award of Commissioner under the Workmen''s Compensation Act, Gurgaon, Annexure P/4, and has submitted that from this Award it was not decipherable that the workman had sustained such an injury which had rendered him permanently disabled partially or that he had become unable of performing his duties and therefore only on the ground that he had been allowed compensation of Rs. 2846. 94 on account of injury sustained by him it could not be said that he had become disabled in any manner or rendered unable to perform his duties. I have given a thoughtful consideration to the above argument and have also gone through the Award. From the said Award, the nature of the injury sustained by the workman could not be ascertained. Nor it could be said as to whether or not the injury in question had rendered him unable to perform his duties. Therefore this point will have to be settled on the basis of evidence led by the parties and that could only be done if the Management is allowed to insert the plea as they have sought to do by way of amendment of the written statement. In this view of the matter the impugned order rejecting the application for amendment of the written statement passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Disputes Tribunal-cum-Labour Court is set aside and the application for amendment is allowed. Parties are directed to appear before that Court on October 29, 1992. Much time has already been lost and therefore, it is directed that disposal of the case be expedited within six months. Revision petition is allowed accordingly.