-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.912 OF 2009 M/s.HMA Super Garment Accessories : Petitioner V/s. Ms Kusum Raghunath Shirsekar & Anr. : Respondents ... WITH WRIT PETITION NO.915 OF 2009 M/s.HMA Super Garment Accessories : Petitioner V/s. Mrs.Usha Dattatreya Jadhav & Anr. : Respondents ... Mr.D.A.Athavale for the petitioner. Mr.P.M.Mokashi for respondent no.1. ... CORAM : S.A. BOBDE, J. DATE : JANUARY 30, 2009. P.C. 1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.9.2008 by which the 7th Labour Court, Mumbai, rejected the application for permission to amend the Written Statement. The learned Labour Court has rejected the application for amendment mainly on the ground that the application for amendment which was made sometime in the year 2008 shows want of due diligence and is, therefore, -: 2 :- not fit to be allowed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by amending Act No.22 of 2002. The said Order as amended reads as follows:- "17. Amendment of pleadings.--The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties: Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial." 2. In brief, the controversy is regarding a claim for reinstatement with back wages made by the respondent no.1. Earlier, the petitioner’s stand was apparently that it had no concern with the unit and the petitioner now seeks to introduce amendment which shows that the petitioner has been making losses and has, therefore, -: 3 :- closed down the unit. The petitioner has also sought a correction of the name. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and it appears that the learned Labour Court is correct in the view which it has taken. Affidavit of evidence was filed in this matter as far back as in the year 2005. The matter then proceeded ex parte. The petitioner applied for restoration which was allowed by the Labour Court, subject to certain conditions which the petitioner could not fulfil. The petitioner, therefore, approached this Court which allowed the petitioner to fulfil the conditions by depositing 30% of the back wages. Thereafter, this application for amendment of the Written Statement is made. The learned counsel for the respondent no.1 further points out that the petitioner has showed lack of diligence also in conducting the matter as on several occasions, the petitioner kept on asking for adjournment and, in fact, the Labour Court also passed an order of no cross-examination on two occasions vide affidavit-in-reply dated 27.1.2009. The Labour Court has observed that Written Statement came to be filed on 21.2.2004 and, thereafter, the respondent no.1 has adduced evidence also. The Labour Court has further observed that this application for amendment could not be filed at the appropriate stage and, in any -: 4 :- case, at the stage when the petitioner applied for restoration. As regards some of the contentions now sought to be introduced in the Written Statement, the Labour Court has observed that these contentions were raised by the petitioner before the High Court in the Writ Petition and could have been raised earlier at the time of filing of the Written Statement. The Labour Court, therefore, has arrived at a conclusion that there is want of due diligence. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for both the sides, I am of view that the order of the Labour Court does not suffer from any error of law apparent from the face of the record, having regard to the provisions of Order VI Rule 17. The Labour Court finding of want of due diligence is essentially a finding of fact arrived at by the Labour Court, having regard to the circumstances of the case. There is no perversity in the finding. The order does not call for any interference. The petitioner shall, however, be allowed to carry out the amendment pertaining to the name of the petitioner-firm. 5. The Writ Petition is dismissed. S.A. BOBDE, J.