Delhi District Court
Sh. Ganesh Chand & Ors. vs . M/S. Hindustan Times Id No. 140/05 on 14 September, 2012
Sh. Ganesh Chand & Ors. Vs. M/s. Hindustan Times ID No. 140/05
IN THE COURT OF DR. P S MALIK THE PRESIDING OFFICER
IN
LABOUR COURT XI, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Computer ID No. 02402C0485502005
F.24 (882)/Lab./4222 - 46 dated
Reference No.
17.08.2005
Type of Case Reference Case
Date of Institution 24.09.2005
Arguments heard on 17.08.2012
Date of Order 14.09.2012
WORKMAN Vs. MANAGEMENT
S/Sh. Ganesh Chand Barthwal S/o M/s. Hindustan Times Limited,
Sh. Ptamber Barthwal, Anil Kumar Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New
Tiwari S/o Sh. Ram Kumar Tiwari, Delhi.
Gopal S/o Sh. Pyare Lal, Sh.
Kishan Lal S/o Sh. Pyare Lal &
Satish S/o Sh. Baldev, C/o
Hindustan Times Employees
Union, Flat No. 29, Shankar
Market, Connaught Place, New
Delhi.
PRESENT:
None for the parties.
ORDER :-
1. On 18.04.2012 an application was moved on behalf of the respondent / Management M/s. Hindustan Times to bring on record soemrelevant facts by way of amendment in the written statement or in such other manner as may be considered appropriate by this court. Along with this application a second application for permission to lead additional evidence of a witness who had already been examined by the respondent / Management was also moved on the same date. But presently only the one for seeking ORDER Page 1 of 5 Sh. Ganesh Chand & Ors. Vs. M/s. Hindustan Times ID No. 140/05 amendment in WS is being considered.
2. By way of this amendment the respondent / Management purported to incorporate an additional preliminary objection no. 4. So far as its necessity of this amendment is concerned, the respondent / Management has pleaded in its para no. 4 which is as follows :
4. "....... During the cross-examination of MW1, on 14.10.2011, the authorized representative of Sh. Gopal had confronted him with document, Business Purchase Agreement, Ex. MW1/W1x (Colly. Pages 1 to 90) and had asked him whether it is the true of the Business Purchase Agreement dated 15.08.2003, to which the witness stated that prima facie the document appeared to be the copy of the agreement but he could not possibly confirm the contents of the same page wise."
3. In the next para the aforementioned application continued in the following words :
5. "That the AR for the Management had objected to the exhibiting of the document as it was beyond pleadings but the copy of the document was duly exhibited as Ex. MW1/W1x and as such in order to explain the proper implications of the said document to the case of the claimants as well as to bring the correct relevant records on the court record, it would be fit and proper and appropriate for a fair and complete adjudication of the reference that the Management may kindly be permited to bring the relevant facts mentioned in paras 2 and 3 on the record of the Hon'ble Court by the way of an amendment to its the written statement by adding an additional preliminary objection no. 4, in the following words ......".
4. On 27.07.2011 the W.E. was completed after the cross - examination of the present claimant / workman Sh. Gopal. Other claimants / workmen failed to tender their evidence. After an adjournment the respondent / Management examined one Sh. Avik Basu as MW1 on 16.08.2011 and his cross - examination was deferred for 23.08.2011. On 23.08.2011 the respondent / Management moved an application U/S 11 (3) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. However, the cross - examination of MW1 Sh. Avik Basu was completed on 14.10.2011 and the matter was taken up for arguments of the parties on the application of the respondent / Management U/S 11 (3) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The said application was decided by the court vide its orders dated 12.01.2012 and the case was listed for remaining ME. On the next date of hearing i.e. 03.02.2012 the respondent / Management again moved an application with some objections regarding the orders of this court dated 12.01.2012. That application ORDER Page 2 of 5 Sh. Ganesh Chand & Ors. Vs. M/s. Hindustan Times ID No. 140/05 was heard and decided on 30.03.2012. While deciding this application this court in para 8 made the following observations :
This court is of the view that such miscellaneous proceedings, as is the present one become instrumentalities consuming much precious time of the court. This time could have been better utilized for the expeditious disposal of this case. This court expresses the expectation from both the parties that they would readily understand this need of expeditious disposal of this case and would provide their necessary assistance in that direction.
5. Thereafter the case was again listed for ME as last opportunity. On 18.04.2012 the respondent / Management has filed this application for amendment in the written statement and the further examination of its witnesses.
6. There is no specific provision for amendment of pleadings in the Industrial Disputes Act. However, if a labour court allows such amendments that can only be encompassed with its powers given U/S 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Basically the procedure adopted by a labour court is generally the one which is adopted by the Civil Courts under the Code of Civil Procedures. Some relaxations are given to the parties by the labour courts in that procedure by exercising its powers U/s 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, generally there is no provision of law for a party to change its pleadings during the course of a labour adjudication. However, in appropriate circumstances the labour courts allow it keeping in view the entire backgrounds of both the parties, their pleadings and other necessary facts.
7. This court has perused the appropriate provisions of law given under the Code of Civil Procedures under Order VI Rule 17. This provision prohibits the motion of applications for amendment after trial had commenced. It has given some space to the court to allow amendments only when it had come to a conclusion that in spite of due diligence the party concerned could not have raised the matter before the 'commencement of trial'. The 'commencement of trial' as an accepted proposition of civil procedure means the framing of issues i.e. a stage where the parties have not disclosed their evidence in the open court.
8. This court has gone through the explanations furnished by the respondent / Management. It has nowhere pleaded or shown that despite due diligence it could not bring a particular aspect of its ORDER Page 3 of 5 Sh. Ganesh Chand & Ors. Vs. M/s. Hindustan Times ID No. 140/05 defence before the court. On the other hand it specifically states that during the cross - examination of its witness MW1 something came on record which could now be explained only through an amendment of the written statement.
9. In a way the case of the respondent / Management in this application is that it wants to cover up some aspect of Management's evidence through its proposed amended pleadings. Whatever it was willingly or unwillingly stated by its witness now needs to be adjusted by the amended pleadings in the proposed written statement.
10. As per the accepted procedure in the civil matters first a party is to plead its case and then it has to prove that case by an appropriate amount of evidence. It is the pleading which is to be proved by evidence. But by its application, the respondent / Management is seeking a permission of this court to make such a set of pleadings which would be conforming to its evidence. As per Management's view it is not the evidence that should be conforming to the pleadings but it is the pleadings that should beconforming to or if not already conforming to then should be allowed to be carved in the shape and size of the evidence. This is something tantamount to putting a cart before the horse. It is permissible neither in law nor in prudence.
11. If the respondent / Management is allowed to amend its pleadings according to its evidence, then, tomorrow again in subsequent evidence, if any, a thousand of circumstances can be pointed which would be warranting corresponding amendments in the respondent / Management's pleadings. That situation would be beyond control of the court and the law both. A court of law can not allow such an application which is likely to create a repetition of proceedings in 'regression ad infinitum'.
12. With these observations the application of the respondent / Management is hereby dismissed.
13. This order cannot be completed by mere dismissal of this application. This court has already made an observation that after 14.10.2011 it could not move even an inch towards the expeditious disposal of this case. An anguish of this court was reflected in para 8 of the orders dated 30.03.2012 (SUPRA) whereby both the parties were urged not to consume time of the court in unproductive work by moving frivolous applications. But that made a little impact on the parties. Hence this court has to take a strict measure to prevent ORDER Page 4 of 5 Sh. Ganesh Chand & Ors. Vs. M/s. Hindustan Times ID No. 140/05 such misuser of procedure of law and that of the court.
14. For this reason this court deems it fit to impose a fine of Rs.10,000/ (Rs. Ten Thousand Only) on the Management out of which a sum of Rs.5,000/ (Rs. Five Thousand Only) be paid to the workman as cost and remaining sum of Rs.5,000/ (Rs. Five Thousand Only) be deposited as fine in the office of the Delhi Legal Aid Cell.
15. Now the file be taken up for RME, if any, as per schedule given in the ordersheet. ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14.09.2012.
ORDER Page 5 of 5