:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2086 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 2086 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 2086 OF 2008 Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. ..Petitioner versus Jenniffer O Erasmus & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. K. M. Malik with Mr. S. P. Salkar for Petitioner. Mr. C. U. Singh with Mr. M. D. Nagle for Respondents. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATE : 16TH SEPTEMBER, 2008. DATE : 16TH SEPTEMBER, 2008. DATE : 16TH SEPTEMBER, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard. 2. The petitioner has challenged the Order of the 9th Labour Court, Mumbai, allowing the respondent No. 1 - complainant’s application for amendment of pleading. The petitioner has also challenged the rejection of the Revision against that Order by the Industrial Court, Maharashtra, on 9.9.2008. The full text of the latter order is not available. However, the matter has been clearly :2: discussed in the Order of the Labour Court. The respondent No. 1 has filed a complaint in which she has claimed relief of full back wages and continuity of service with effect from 15.1.2002 along with reinstatement. Presumably having regard to the position in law that the complainant must establish and prove entitlement to back wages, she preferred an application for amendment of her complaint in that regard. Apparently, this application has been strongly objected to by the petitioner on the ground that it is an after thought. The Labour Court has held that the amendment sought by the respondent No.1 is necessary in order to resolve the real controversy in dispute. That position seems to be affirmed by the Industrial Court. The view of the Labour Court does not suffer from any error in law apparent from the face of the record. Indeed, there is no change in the nature of complaint. Application is only by way of elaboration of the facts which according to the respondent No.1 entitled her to back wages. There is therefore no merit in the petition, which is rejected. (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.)