AMRUT GINNING FACTORY Vs. NAMOBAI TANAJI PAWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard learned Counsel Mr. Malte for the appellant. There are certain admitted facts, which we are listing herein below.

(2.) The claimants/legal representatives of deceased Tanaji had moved an application seeking amendment. Copy of the said application is on record at Exh. "U" (page 88) of the compilation. This application was moved on 17.6.2003. This application, has been opposed by filing reply by the present appellant. This amendment application after hearing the parties is allowed by the learned Commissioner Workmen's Compensation. The order passed by the learned Commissioner for Workman's Compensation is on record at Exh. "Z" (page 121). This order has been passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation on 12.2.2008. This order was challenged by filing writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution before the learned Single Bench by the present appellant. The order passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1703 of 2009 is annexed at Exh. Z-l (page 140 of the compilation). By this order on 24.4.2009 the learned Single Bench of this Court dismissed the petition thereby upholding the order passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. The order passed by learned Single Bench in Writ Petition No. 1703 of 2009 is challenged in this Letters Patent Appeal.

(3.) On behalf of the appellant, our attention has been invited to the pleading in the original application filed by the legal representative of deceased employee/workman Mr. Tanaji Pawar. Counsel for the appellant, has also pointed out the pleading in the amendment application, moved on behalf of the legal representative. According to him, admission which was given in the earlier pleading i.e. application filed by the legal representatives is tried to be withdrawn by this amendment which is impermissible. He further points out that after going through the pleading on behalf of the parties in the trial Court i.e. before learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, certain issues were framed, which are at page 81 of the compilation. According to him, affidavit by way of evidence is also produced. Therefore, grievance raised is regarding the withdrawal of the admission given in the earlier pleading by the legal representatives. We have perused judgment of the learned Commissioner, Workman's Compensation. Learned Commissioner, has considered the submissions and by reasoned order has allowed application seeking amendment to the original pleading. Learned Single Bench of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution has considered the grievance raised that admission given by the legal representative in earlier pleading has been sought to be withdrawn by way of amendment. This argument has been dealt with by the learned Single Bench of this Court. Learned Single Judge did not accept the submissions made on behalf of the legal representatives.