Case Note & Summary
The applicant, M/s. Bella Vista Drycleaners, filed a Civil Revision Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 15.09.2025 passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai, in Complaint (ULP) No. 94 of 2024. The Industrial Court had rejected the applicant's application for amendment of the written statement. The respondents, Vishwanath Kanojia and Akhil Bhartiya General Kamgar Union, were served but did not appear. The applicant was represented by Mr. Sunil Rajaram More, and the Court appointed Mr. Shailesh S. Pathak through the Legal Aid Department to assist. The Court heard arguments and reserved judgment on October 6, 2025, pronouncing it on December 2, 2025. The core issue was whether the Industrial Court erred in rejecting the amendment application. The applicant argued that the amendment was necessary to clarify the pleadings and did not change the nature of the case. The Court analyzed the provisions of Section 30 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, and the principles of amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court held that the Industrial Court failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law, as the amendment was clarificatory and would help in effective adjudication. The Court set aside the impugned order and allowed the amendment application, directing the Industrial Court to proceed with the complaint in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Amendment of Written Statement - Section 30 of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - The Industrial Court rejected the employer's application for amendment of written statement on the ground that it would change the nature of the case. The High Court held that the Industrial Court failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it, as the amendment was clarificatory and necessary for effective adjudication. The Court set aside the impugned order and allowed the amendment application. (Paras 1-5) B) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The principles of amendment of pleadings under the CPC are applicable to proceedings under the MRTU & PULP Act. Amendments should be liberally allowed to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to determine the real question in controversy. The High Court held that the Industrial Court's refusal was erroneous. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court erred in rejecting the applicant's application for amendment of the written statement in a complaint under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, and whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the Civil Revision Application. The impugned order dated 15.09.2025 passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai, was set aside. The application for amendment of the written statement was allowed. The Industrial Court was directed to proceed with the complaint in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Industrial Court has jurisdiction to allow amendment of written statement under Section 30 of MRTU & PULP Act
- 1971
- even after framing of issues
- if necessary for effective adjudication
- Amendment of pleadings should be liberally allowed to avoid multiplicity of proceedings
- The Industrial Court's refusal to allow amendment on the ground that it would change the nature of the case was erroneous as the amendment sought was clarificatory in nature
