-:- 1 -:- Writ Petition No.7774 of 2006. 16.12.2011 :- Ms. Vandana Kasrekar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri G.S.Patwardhan, learned counsel for the Respondents. Heard. O R D E R BY filing this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 08.09.2006 passed by Industrial Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore in Appeal No.345/MPIR/2005, whereby the Industrial Court has affirmed the order dated 07.05.2005 passed by Labour Court, Indore in Case No.63/MPIR/2002 dismissing the petitioner's application filed under Section 31 (3) of the M. P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 [for short “the Act”]. [2] In the writ petition, a ground has been raised by the petitioner that the learned Industrial Court has grossly erred in not considering the contentions of the petitioner that his appointment was made by the Superintendent Engineer, but -:- 2 -:- the impugned order of demotion was passed by the Executive Engineer, an authority lower in rank, on the ground that no such pleading was raised in the application filed under Section 31 (3) of the Act. [3] According to the petitioner the said ground being legal and goes to the root of the matter and, therefore, the Industrial Court should have decided the same even in the absence of the pleading. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed I.A.No.3552/2011 seeking amendment in the application filed by the petitioner under Section 31 (3) read with Sections 61 and 62 of the Act before the Labour Court. A prayer is, therefore, made that I.A. No.3552/2011 be allowed and the matter be remanded back to the Labour Court for fresh decision on the basis of the amendment proposed in the application. [4] Shri G.S.Patwardhan, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents on the other hand argued that the application having been filed at the belated stage, the same be not allowed. He further argued that the order of demotion is -:- 3 -:- passed by the competent authority and the petitioner's stand to that extent is wholly mis-conceived. [5] Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, we find that the question raised by the petitioner before the Industrial Court was legal in nature and goes to the root of the matter and as such the same should have been dealt with by the Industrial Court. Be that as it may, since the petitioner has filed an application seeking amendment in the application filed before the Labour Court, in the interests of justice we deem it proper to allow the said application and direct the Labour Court to decide the matter afresh after giving opportunity to the Respondents herein to amend its written-statement and to lead evidence of the parties after framing of issue about the same. [6] In view of the aforesaid, we allow I.A. No.3552/2011 as also the writ petition and set-aside the order passed by the Labour Court as also by the Industrial Court and remit the matter to the Labour Court for fresh adjudication after giving the parties opportunity to amend the pleadings in the light of amendment sought vide aforesaid IA. Thereafter -:- 4 -:- the Labour Court shall frame issue in terms of the said pleadings and shall decide the matter afresh after giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence, if they so desire in accordance with law. [7] Parties to appear before the Labour Court on 30.01.2012. Record of the Labour Court be remitted back immediately. C.c. within 3 days. [ Shantanu Kemkar ] [ Prakash Shrivastava ] JUDGE JUDGE (AKS)