1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4989 OF 2009 (Suresh Piru Kaloshiya vs. Dy. Director of Public Health, Akola & Anr.) 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. FEBRUARY 03, 2010. Heard Shri Saboo, learned counsel for the petitioner - employee and Shri Kothari, learned AGP for the respondents. The learned AGP is seeking time to file reply affidavit on record. However, reply without affidavit is accepted on record as the petitioner has no objection. With the consent of parties heard finally. The petitioner has filed Complaint (ULP) No. 144 of 1992 for grant of permanency as a Sweeper to point out his entitlement. He wanted to rely upon Lad and Page Committee. That application has not been allowed by the learned Member of Industrial Court on the ground that the amendment was being sought almost after 19 years when the examination-in-chief was filed on record on affidavit. Shri Saboo, learned counsel contends that the analogy of Order 6, Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code could not have been applied by the Industrial Court. The learned AGP contends that as there was 2 unexplained delay and laches, amendment has been rightly rejected. The petitioner is trying to prove unfair labour practice by showing that though he is entitled to regularization, the same has been denied to him. Thus, denial of regularization continues even today. In this situation, there is no question of any delay or laches in the matter as cause of action is continuous one. Not only this, the petitioner only wanted to place on record the report of Committees constituted by State Government which gave precedence to members of a particular community for doing that job and for absorption in permanent service. It is, therefore, obvious that no prejudice is caused to the respondents in the matter by alleged delay or laches. The impugned order passed below Exh. 28 on 31.07.2009 by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Amravati, in ULP No. 144 of 1992 is, therefore, quashed and set aside. The said application at Exh. 28 is allowed. The petitioner to carry out necessary amendment in his complaint by 2nd March 2010. Liberty to the respondents to carry out consequential amendment, if any, in their written statement thereafter. The petitioner is also given leave to file additional affidavit of examination-in-chief, if felt necessary, after such consequential amendment by the respondents. The Industrial Court shall thereafter proceed further with the matter in accordance with law. 3 As Complaint (ULP) is of the year 1992, the Industrial Court shall attempt to decide the same as early as possible. Writ Petition is disposed of. Rule accordingly. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.