vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5605 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.5605 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.5605 OF 2008 Vidya Vithal Lad ... Petitioner V/s. The Bandra Holy Family Hospital & Anr. ... Respondents Mr.Neeta P. Karnik for Petitioner Mr.Manoj Gujar for Respondent No.1 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J MHATRE, J MHATRE, J. DATED: AUGUST 4, 2008 AUGUST 4, 2008 AUGUST 4, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The petition challenges the order passed by the Industrial Court in revision application (ULP) No.75 of 2005. By this order, the Industrial Court has set aside the order passed by the Labour Court on 27.1.2005, allowing the amendment application filed by the petitioner on 15.6.2002. 2. The amendments which have been sought are relating to an incident which occurred on 15.1.1997. The second amendment sought is with reference to certain letters that the complainant had addressed to the Bandra Police station and a letter addressed by the union to the respondent. These letters are already on record and the petitioner wishes to merely state the fact that such letters were addressed to the police as well as the respondents, through the amendment. The third amendment sought is with regard to the meeting held between the advocate for the respondent and the Secretary of the union representing the workman, as well as her advocate. : 2 : Another amendment which is sought is with regard to the addition of a prayer for backwages to be calculated with interest @12% p.a. 3. The Industrial Court has accepted the submissions of the learned advocate for the respondent. The learned advocate submits before me that by the amendment, the petitioner is seeking to change the cause of action in the complaint. He submits that an incident which occurred on 15.1.2007 should have been mentioned in the complaint which was filed on 17.1.2007 and the amendment, therefore, should not be allowed. He further submits that no pleadings with regard to the letters which are already on record should be permitted as a party cannot tailor its averments to suit the documents which are already on record. He then submits that in any event the meeting or discussions which were held between the advocates for the respondent and the petitioner are privileged communications u/s 126 of the Indian Evidence Act and, therefore, this pleading cannot be included. 4. I am unable to accept the submissions made by the learned advocate for the respondent. The complaint has been filed under Items 1(a), (b), (d) and (f) of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act and Item 3 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. The complaint has : 3 : been filed before the Labour Court. Obviously, therefore, the complaint with respect to the unfair labour practice under Item 3 cannot be considered by the Labour Court. Reliefs which have been sought in the complaint relate to the reinstatement with continuity of wages and full backwages. In fact, prayer clause (a) is for a declaration that the respondent has engaged in unfair labour practices under Items 1(a), (b), (d) and (f) of the Schedule IV. Prayer (b) is with regard to a direction to cease and desist from indulging in the unfair labour practices under Item 1(a), (b), (d) and (f) of Schedule IV. By prayer (d) the complainant has sought to restrain the respondents from terminating her services as well as from transferring her from the respondent hospital. Prayer (d), in my view, with respect to transfer in any event cannot be granted by the Labour Court. Therefore, essentially the complaint deals with termination of service. The amendment sought in para (d) is with respect to termination of service and, therefore, in my opinion, this amendment can be allowed. The additional prayer sought is also with regard to the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service and full backwages. Interest has also been sought on backwages if awarded. Thus, even this amendment to the prayer clause can be granted. 4. As regards para (d) in the application, there is : 4 : no doubt that the documents referred to in this amendment have already been filed on record. The pleading which the petitioner wants to insert in the complaint only mentions that the aforesaid letters were issued to the various authorities. There is no comment on those letters nor is there any statement which would deflect from these letters. Therefore, in my opinion, para (e) also can be allowed. 5. As regards para (f), the submission of the learned advocate for the respondent that the discussions at the meetings between two advocates are privileged communications u/s 126 of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be accepted. Section 126 relates to the privileged communication between an advocate and his client and not between two advocates or the discussions held between litigants and their respective advocates. However, this pleading is with regard to the events which have occurred after the filing of the complaint. In my opinion, the amendment which has been sought does not take the case of the complainant-petitioner any further and, therefore, need not be allowed. 5. Hence, the order of the Industrial Court is set aside. The order of the Labour Court is modified to the extent that the amendment contained in paragraphs (d) and (e) and prayer clause (ca) are allowed. The : 5 : respondent may file an additional written statement within two weeks after the amendments are carried out. 6. Petition is disposed of accordingly.