CMPMO 546 of 2008. 19.11.2008 Present: Mr. Raman Sethi, counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Anuj Gupta, counsel for the respondent. This petition has been filed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Solan on 18.7.2008 allowing application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the respondent – plaintiff. The learned Court allowed the amendments prayed for which according to the plaintiff were events which had occurred during the pendency of the case. Three amendments sought for were: “6-A That during the pendency of the suit the defendants who could not change the service conditions of the plaintiff after wrong and illegal inquiry passed order of dismissal from service against the plaintiff and sought approval under section 33(2) (b) of Industrial Disputes Act. Prior to permission could have been obtained by the defendants, the plaintiff served demand notice under section 2-A of Industrial Disputes Act in pursuance whereof conciliation proceedings were initiated and summons dated 27.10.2007 for appearing before Conciliation Officer have been issued by Labour Officer-cum-Conciliation Officer, Solan Zone H.P.. As such -2- conciliation proceedings with regard to personal industrial dispute of the plaintiff started or came into existence on 27.10.2006. 6-B That conciliation proceedings started by Conciliation Officer failed and therefore, Labour Commissioner has made reference to Labour Tribunal, H.P. that: “Whether the dismissal of service of Shri Madan Lal (Cook) son of late Shri Ganga Ram by the Head Master (Officiating) of Lawrence School Sanawar, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan, H.P. after conducting domestic inquiry with effect from 22.12.2003 is legal and justified? If not, what relief of back wages, seniority and amount of compensation the aggrieved workman is entitled to”? So during pendency of present civil suit conciliation proceedings with reference to dismissal of plaintiff from service started and vide notification dated 4.1.2008 reference of industrial dispute has been made. 6-C That defendant cannot treat the plaintiff to be a dismissed employee as under section 33(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, express permission of the Labour Officer-cum- Conciliation Officer was required and the defendants have failed to obtain the same. Moreover, the proceedings under section 33(1) and 33(2) of Industrial Disputes Act are -3- independent of each other, so plaintiff has a legal right to claim status of employee of the defendants and not to vacate the house in question. All the acts and conduct of the defendants are malafide and illegal. The defendants want to victimize the plaintiff by all means so as to crush trade union activities. There is a industrial dispute qua the dismissal of services of plaintiff and as such defendants have no right to evict the plaintiff from house in question as the same will further amount to change in service condition etc.” These amendments were opposed by the defendant-respondent inter alia on the ground that the proposed amendments were neither necessary nor essential for the just decision of the case. The factual averments were contested on merits. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that by virtue of these amendments, plaintiff seeks to raise an industrial dispute before the civil Court which cannot be permitted. I do not find that allowing these amendments perse grants the reliefs sought for -4- by the plaintiff. It will be open to the defendants – petitioners to plead that the frame of the suit after amendment ousts the jurisdiction of the civil Court. If that be so, the plaintiff would fail on the pleadings as filed by him. No error of jurisdiction has been committed by the learned trial Court in the case. The allowing of the amendment does not finally dispose of the case, but leaves it open for trial on merits. This petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending application(s) shall stand dismissed. November 19, 2008 (PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.