KUNDIL ALLOYS PVT LTD Vs. GOVIND FADTE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule in Writ Petitions No.59 of 2013, 62 of 2013 & 67 of 2013 with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. In so far as Writ Petition no.813 of 2012 is concerned, rule came to be issued in the said Writ Petition on 13/06/2013.

(2.) The above Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India arise out of orders each dated 30/04/2012. By the said orders the applications filed by the petitioner-company in the pending references under the Industrial Disputes Act for being permitted to amend the written statement so as to incorporate an averment that in the event the Industrial Tribunal holds the inquiry as vitiated on any grounds it should be allowed to lead evidence in Court came to be rejected. The Industrial Tribunal would be hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal", the petitioner as "petitioner-company" and the respondents as "respondents-workmen" for the sake of brevity.

(3.) It is not necessary to burden this order with unnecessary details. Suffice it to say that the references have arisen before the Tribunal in respect of the demands made by the respondents-workmen in each of the above petitions for their reinstatement with consequential benefits. In so far as Writ Petition No.62/2013 and Writ Petition No.67/2013 are concerned, the dismissal orders passed against the respondents-workmen therein were passed without holding inquiry as according to the petitioner-company it was not possible to hold inquiry against the said workmen for the reasons which have been mentioned in the dismissal orders. In so far as Writ Petition No.813/2012 and Writ Petition No.59/2013 are concerned, the respondents-workmen have been dismissed after holding an inquiry. The references in question being IT No.3/2009 (subject matter of Writ Petition No.813 of 2012) and the companion references are at the stage where the affidavit of evidence of the witness of the respondents-workmen has been filed. The statements of claim in each of the said references have been replied to on behalf of the petitioner-company by filing its written statement. However, the plea that the petitioner-company should be allowed to lead evidence in the event the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the inquiry is vitiated has not been taken. The petitioner therefore filed the applications in question for amendment of the written statement so as to incorporate an averment which in so far as IT No.22/2010 is concerned is by way of incorporating paragraph 34(a) which for the sake of ready reference is reproduced herein under: