CWP NO. 495 of 2001 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 495 of 2001 Date of decision: 03.03.2010 The State of Punjab and others ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur and another ....... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Ms. Monica Chhibbar Sharma, DAG, Punjab, for the petitioner. Mr. Sushil Saini, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) In the present writ petition, the State of Punjab has challenged order dated 19.10.2000 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Labour Court, Gurdaspur-respondent No. 1, wherein an application preferred by the petitioners for amendment of the written statement on the ground that some points have not been challenged in the written statement which are CWP NO. 495 of 2001 2 essential for the adjudication of the case, has been rejected on the ground that the application for amendment of the written statement does not fulfil the requirement of the law. Counsel for the petitioners contends that the Labour Court has proceeded on mere technicality and it is now a settled preposition of law that the Court has to devise its own procedure for doing justice between the parties. The Court has not come to a conclusion that the amendment proposed in the application for amendment of the written statement was either irrelevant or not called for but has proceeded to decide the case on the ground that it would lead to delay in the proceedings. She, on this basis, contends that the Labour Court has misguided itself in deciding the application rather than deciding the application keeping the interest of justice at the highest pedestal. On the other hand, counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that the order impugned passed by the Labour Court is fully justified and does not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. It cannot be disputed that strict Rules of the Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable to the proceedings before the Labour Court. The Labour Court is thus entitled to carve out its own procedure depending on the facts and circumstances of each case keeping the interest of justice as the main purpose which is sought to be achieved. A perusal of the Award does not indicate that the Labour Court had found the proposed amendments in the written statement to be either not relevant or without any basis which would call for rejection. Merely on CWP NO. 495 of 2001 3 the ground that it would delay the proceedings further cannot be made the basis for rejecting an application for amendment of the written statement. It would not be out of way to mention here that the proceedings before the Labour Court were stayed by this Court vide order dated 12.01.2001. The said stay is still continuing. The order passed by the Labour Court, Gurdaspur, which has proceeded to reject the application on mere technicalities without looking into the merits of the amendments, cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 19.10.2000 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Labour Court, Gurdaspur-respondent No. 1 is hereby set aside. The application for amendment of the written statement is allowed and amended written statement is taken on record. The parties are directed to appear before the Labour Court, Gurdaspur, on 05.04.2010. In the light of the fact that the case is an old one, efforts would be made by the Labour Court to take this case on priority and decide the same expeditiously. ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE March 03, 2010 pj CWP NO. 495 of 2001 4