Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, GTL Limited, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 10.2.2006 passed by the Industrial Tribunal (Maharashtra) at Thane in Reference (IT) No.15 of 2004. The impugned order refused to remove from record an additional written statement dated 4.4.2005 (Ex.CA-6) filed by the first party contractor (respondent No.2). The petitioner is engaged in Process Outsourcing and Information Technology Services. Respondent No.1 is a trade union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. Respondent No.2 is the proprietress of M/s Classic Enterprises, a contractor engaged by the petitioner for housekeeping at its premises. An industrial dispute arose between the parties, leading to conciliation proceedings which failed. The appropriate government referred the matter to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. The union filed a statement of claim, and the petitioner filed a written statement. Respondent No.2, being the first party contractor, filed an additional written statement. The petitioner sought to strike out this additional statement, but the Tribunal refused. The petitioner argued that the additional statement was filed without leave of the Tribunal and was not permissible under the Industrial Disputes Act. The respondents contended that the Tribunal had discretion to allow additional pleadings. The High Court held that the Industrial Tribunal has discretion to allow additional pleadings, and the principles of Order VIII Rule 9 of the CPC can be applied. The court found no perversity or prejudice caused to the petitioner. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Additional Written Statement - Discretion of Tribunal - The Industrial Tribunal has discretion to allow additional pleadings to be filed, and such discretion should not be interfered with unless it results in prejudice or injustice. The Tribunal's refusal to strike out the additional written statement was upheld as no prejudice was shown. (Paras 1-10) B) Civil Procedure Code - Order VIII Rule 9 - Applicability to Industrial Tribunals - While the CPC is not strictly applicable, the principles of Order VIII Rule 9 (subsequent pleadings) can be applied by Industrial Tribunals in the interest of justice. The Tribunal's decision to allow the additional statement was within its powers. (Paras 8-10) C) Industrial Law - Strike Out Pleadings - Power of Tribunal - The power to strike out pleadings is limited to cases where the pleading is scandalous, frivolous, or vexatious, or may prejudice or embarrass the fair trial. The additional written statement did not fall within these categories. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Tribunal erred in refusing to strike out the additional written statement filed by the first party contractor, and whether the Tribunal's order was perverse or without jurisdiction.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Tribunal's order refusing to strike out the additional written statement. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Industrial Tribunal's discretion to allow additional pleadings
- Order VIII Rule 9 CPC applicability to industrial adjudication
- Principles of natural justice
- Power to strike out pleadings
