Orion Ropes Pvt. Ltd. vs Yogesh Namdeo Mane and Others

S.V. Gangapurwala, J.—Heard. The present petition impugns two orders passed by the Industrial Court, Dhule. One is the order passed below Exh. C-4 for deciding preliminary issue and another is an order passed on an application for amendment/addition of party.

Mr. Ghuge, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that while rejecting the application Exh. C-4, the Industrial Court has practically given the finding on the preliminary issue sought to be framed. The observations therein are as if the Court is concluding the finding on the issue. The learned Counsel contends that the complaint as it is was not maintainable. The petitioners have raised valid preliminary issues and the Industrial Court could not have dealt with them in such a manner.

As far as decision on Exh. C-4 is concerned, the same could not be interfered in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The Court has rejected the application for framing the issue as a preliminary issue. It was within the domain of the Tribunal in declining to try a particular issue as a preliminary issue. The observations made therein are prima facie in nature and are only meant for deciding Exh. C-4. The Industrial Court would decide the said issues on its own merits as and when the said issues are taken up for hearing.

Mr. Ghuge, learned Counsel submits that the Industrial Court has allowed the application for amendment/addition of party without assigning any reasons. In a four line order, it has allowed the said application. The objections raised are sought to be negated by the amendment on the part of the petitioners. The Industrial Court could not have allowed such an application in a casual manner. The basic objection of the present petitioners was that there is no employer employee relationship and the complaint as it was filed is not at all maintainable. While allowing the application and passing the impugned order dated 11.2.2011, the Industrial Court has not dilated on this aspect of the matter and without assigning any reason has allowed the amendment application. The petitioner is armed with an order of interim relief for almost a year.

Mr. Patil, learned Counsel for the original complainant submits that the cause title can always be amended. The misdescription of the party can always be corrected. For the said purpose the learned Counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Ganesh Trading Co. Vs. Moji Ram, . The learned Counsel contends that the petitioner who is an added party will have every right to file his written statement and contest the complaint. No prejudice can be said to be caused.

There cannot be a dispute with the proposition that the cause title can be amended and corrected, if there is misdescription of the party. In the present case, the application is filed for addition of party. The Industrial Court as such is required to consider the said application for addition of party. The original defendants are retained and the present petitioner No. 1 is directed to be added as additional defendant. The procedural law is meant to sub-serve the cause of substantial justice and the formal defect can be allowed to be cured. However, while considering the application and passing the order, the Court is required to give reasons and take into consideration all the circumstances. Even section 21 of the Limitation Act, is required to be considered while adding a party.

In light of the above, as the impugned order is bereft of any reasons and nothing has been dilated by the Tribunal about the objections raised by the petitioners, I am inclined to quash and set aside the impugned order and relegate the parties to the Industrial Court for deciding the application for amendment dated 16.6.2010, afresh. In light of the above, the impugned order is quashed. The Industrial Court, Dhule shall decide the application for amendment/addition of party, afresh, considering objections raised on its own merits.