1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 189/2010. Visveswaraya National Institute of Technology -: versus :- Kishore L. Kombe and others Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : MARCH 26, 2010. Heard Shri A.R. Patil, learned counsel for petitioner and Shri M.V. Mohokar, learned counsel for respondents no.1 and 2. Learned A.G.P. appears for respondent no.3. Petitioner / employer because of subsequent expiry of contract amended their written statement to point out the fact and contention that after expiry of that contract, respondents/complainants before Industrial Court were not in employment. Industrial Court permitted that amendment to written statement. After that amendment to written statement, respondents/complainants sought consequential amendment in complaint as filed and added paragraph nos. 11[a] and 11[b] to show that their appointment for period of three months was itself illegal and constituted unfair labour practice and placed reliance upon the provisions of Model Standing Orders and completion of 240 days of continuous service. Because of these contentions raised, the petitioner employer wanted to meet those grounds by amendment written statement by pleading that the said contentions were 2 factually and legally incorrect. That amendment has been rejected by the Industrial Court. The rejection is because of say of the complainants that amendment to complaint by them was itself on account of consequential amendment and no further amendment to written statement is necessary. During arguments Shri Mohokar, learned counsel has invited attention to the said stand and has expressly stated that no contention that a particular defence to meet the grounds raised by paragraph nos. 11[a] and 11[b] in complaint is on record shall be raised before the trial court. It is apparent that paragraph nos. 11[a] and 11[b] are allowed to be added by the Industrial Court in complaint by way of consequential amendment and hence burden to prove the facts in those paragraphs and also the necessary law governing those facts is upon the respondents / complainants. By way of abundant precaution the petitioner / employer has sought to place on record the necessary grounds to meet the same. In view of the express statement made by Shri Mohokar, learned counsel and reply of complainants before the Industrial Court, it is apparent that because of rejection of proposed amendment by the Industrial Court no prejudice is caused to the petitioner- employer. Petitioner - employer is free to press into service those grounds at appropriate juncture i.e. during arguments or at other appropriate stage. With this clarification, Writ Petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. JUDGE Rgd.