1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5261 OF 2009 (Sudhakar Nagorao Raut vs. Shivchandrai Jhunjhunwala Charitable Trust & Ors.) 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. MARCH 08, 2010. Heard Shri Raut, learned counsel for the petitioner – complainant and Shri M. Rajan Pillai, learned counsel for the respondents. Shri Rajan Pillai, learned counsel states that the reply is ready but it is not sworn. The learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection if the reply is taken on record with the signature of the counsel for the respondents. Accordingly, that reply is taken on record. The petitioner has filed ULP Complaint No. 406 of 1999 challenging the order of transfer and in that complaint in 2006 he sought amendment. That amendment has been rejected by impugned order dated 14.08.2009 by the Industrial Court, Amravati. Shri Raut, learned counsel contends that merits of the amendment could not have been gone into and as the facts sought to be brought on record are relevant, amendment could not have been rejected. Shri Manoj Rajan, learned counsel points out that in the complaint though the application for grant of 2 stay of transfer order was filed, that application was not pressed. Later on, the services of the petitioner are already terminated and that dismissal is not challenged. In this situation, the challenge to transfer has become infructuous. He further points out that on earlier three occasions, the amendment was sought in ULP Complaint and in amendment now proposed, all old facts within the knowledge of the petitioner at the time of filing of complaint are sought to be incorporated. He states that the facts and reliance thereupon is by way of after thought. I have perused the proposed amendment. It contains some facts and mostly arguments on those facts. However, the facts pleaded cannot be stated to be irrelevant or unconnected with the issue of transfer. It is, therefore, clear that the learned Member of Industrial Court could not have gone into the merits of the said plea at this stage. Merely because main complaint is of three pages and proposed amendment is of six pages, amendment could not have been rejected. The relevance of those facts or whether the case being made out on the basis of facts are by way of after thought, are all issues which pertain to merit of the matter and the respondents are at liberty to bring the said events and the aspects on record by appropriate cross examination/ evidence. Shri Raut, learned counsel has pointed out that the learned Member of Industrial Court has rejected 3 interim stay of transfer and dismissal of petitioner is challenged by him in independent complaint before Labour Court. In this situation, the impugned order dated 14.08.2009 passed below Exh. 57 is set aside. The amendment as sought for is allowed. The petitioner to carry out necessary amendment by 29.03.2010. Liberty to the respondent – employer to carry out consequential amendment thereafter by 12th April 2010. The Industrial Court shall proceed further with the trial of the complaint and attempt to decide it as early as possible and in any case by 31st December 2010. Writ Petition is disposed of. Rule accordingly. However, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.