HINDUSTHAN DEVELOPMENT Vs. FIRST LABOUR COURT W B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant writ petition filed on behalf of M/s Hindusthan Development Corporation Limited & Anr., the petitioner herein, the petitioner has challenged an order passed by the First Labour Court dated July 31, 1992, whereby the prayer of the petitioner company to file additional written statement and/or objection under Rule 20D of the Industrial Dispute Rules, 1985, has been rejected.

(2.) Mr. K. P. Mookherjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner company, submits that since there is no bar in framing additional issue in terms of Rule 20D of the Industrial Dispute Rules, the learned Judge, First Labour Court has committed an error which is apparent on the face of record in not allowing the opposite party company (petitioner herein) to file additional written statement in terms of Rule 20D of the aforesaid Rules.

(3.) Mr. Balai Ch. Paul, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Workman, after placing the provisions of Rule 20D of the Rules relating to filing of the additional issues, put much emphasis on the wording that issues relating to and arising out of the point in dispute, and matters thereto, as well as the additional or subsidiary issues and as in the present case there was no reference in this regard by the State Government. The Labour Court has rightly rejected the prayer on behalf of the company to frame additional issue.