ARMY PUBLIC SCHOOL Vs. RAMDHAN SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenges the order dated 31.5.2012 whereby application for amendment preferred by the petitioner/employer is rejected by the Labour Court. The services of the respondent were terminated by the petitioner Army Public School. The respondent raised an industrial dispute which, in turn, was referred to the Labour Court by the State Government. The respondent filed its statement of claim before the Labour Court. In turn, the employer filed his written statement. Thereafter, when matter was at the stage of evidence, the employer filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. (Annexure P -8) on 25.12.2011. It was opposed by workman by filing reply. By impugned order, the said application is rejected.

(2.) THE Labour Court rejected the application by holding that the amendment is filed after commencement of trial and, therefore, it cannot be allowed. It is further held that if averments of amendment application are accepted, it will change the nature of the case. The present dispute is sent by M.P. Government and if amendment is accepted, the appropriate Government will be Central Government. Thus, acceptance of amendment will result into automatic cancellation of reference. Thus, in the opinion of Labour Court, it amounts to change of nature of the case which cannot be allowed.

(3.) THE stand of Shri Vivek Jain, learned counsel for the workman is that belated amendment is malicious. In written statement, the employer had taken a stand that it is governed under Society Registration Act. The employer is not getting any financial aid from Central Government, nor it is a public body. The contract between workman and employer is a service contract. The employer school is a private school. By way of amendment, a 'U' turn is taken by stating that the land, building etc. are provided by Central Government. The land and building provided is through Cantonment Board and the appropriate Government is Central Government. Shri Jain submits that complete somersault is not permissible. He relied on : AIR 1998 SC 617 (M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India and others) in this regard. In addition, it is submitted that as per Section 2(a), for petitioner Central Government is not the appropriate Government. By placing reliance on Section 10(4) of ID Act, it is urged that the Labour Court cannot travel beyond the reference and, therefore, it cannot adjudicate whether the State Government is the appropriate Government. He submits that Labour Court assumed jurisdiction because of the reference. Thus, it cannot decide whether the State Government is the 'appropriate Government'. If amendment is allowed, Labour Court would be required to decide whether State Government is appropriate Government which will be beyond the scope of jurisdiction of Labour Court. On these grounds, he supported the Labour Court's order.