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

Hon''ble Mr. S.V. Gangapurwala, J.—Heard. The petitioners have assailed the order allowing the amendment application filed by the Respondents.

Mr. Ghuge, learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contends that the Respondents had filed a complaint (ULP) seeking permanency. The petitioners raised multifarious objections in the Written Statement. The petitioners denied the employer-employee relationship. The petitioners took a specific stand that the Respondents are made parties by name. The Company is not added as a party. There is no employer-employee relationship and the complaint as it is, is not maintainable. The Respondents thereafter, filed an application for amendment to over-come the said legal objections raised by the petitioners. According to the learned counsel such an amendment cannot be allowed. By amendment, the Respondents are adding the Company as a party. It is not a case of substituting or amending the title clause only. According to the learned counsel, such an amendment cannot be allowed. The Industrial Court while passing the impugned order has not discussed about the objections raised by the petitioners. No reasons are given by the Industrial Court in that regard. In view of that, the learned counsel submits that the impugned order being erroneous, deserves to be quashed and set aside.

When the application for amendment was made even issues were not framed. The application Exh. U-2 for interim orders was for hearing. The objection of the petitioners is that after the petitioners had raised legal objections in the Written Statement, the said amendment application is made and it has an effect of nullifying legal objections.

It would be seen that the case had not proceeded to the stage of hearing. The cause title can be amended. While considering the amendment application, the cause for substantial justice will have to be considered. The claim of the Respondents was for permanency, naturally the same has to be against the Company but in the title clause instead of showing the Company represented through its authorised officers, the names of the authorised officers were written first along with their designation with the Company. The Mofussil pleadings have to be liberally construed. Taking into account, the said technical flaw, the Respondents filed an application for amendment by adding the company as a party. The same being a procedural one has been allowed by the Industrial Court. The petitioners cannot claim a vested right for procedural lapse on the part of the Respondents. The same is always curable and precisely that has been done by filing amendment application. In view of the above, the Writ Petition being sans merit, is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.