1 W.P.NO.5162/10 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5162 OF 2010 M/s.Bharat Gears Ltd. ... Petitioners v/s The Workmen represented by Association of Engg. Workers, Mumbai – 400 077. ... Respondent Mr.P.C.Pavaskar for the petitioner. Mr.N.M.Ganguli for the respondent. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 26TH JULY, 2010 P.C.: 1. The petition has been filed against the order passed below Exh.449 by the Labour Court on 24.2.2010. The order has been passed on the application filed by the petitioners contending that the reference should be disposed of in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra Sankla Etc.v/s Vikram Cement Etc. & ors., reported in A.I.R. 2009 SC 713. A 2 W.P.NO.5162/10 further prayer for amendment of the written statement has also been made. 2. The Labour Court has dismissed the application by holding that the issue whether the workers have voluntarily retired or had been forced to retire or resign has to be decided at the hearing of the reference. The Labour Court has rightly held that the judgment in the case of Ramesh Chandra Sankla (supra) does not apply to the facts in the present case. The Apex Court has recorded in the aforesaid case that the workmen had undertaken that they were ready to refund the amounts received by them when they took voluntary retirement from service. In these circumstances the Supreme Court directed the employees in the aforesaid case to deposit the amounts received by them, before proceeding with the reference. No such undertaking has been furnished by the employees in the present reference. Therefore, the aforesaid judgment cannot be made applicable to the facts in the present case as sought to be urged by Mr. Pawaskar for the petitioners. 3. However, while dismissing the application, the Labour Court has not considered whether the petitioners could be permitted to amend the written statement. It is common 3 W.P.NO.5162/10 ground that evidence has already been led by both, the petitioners as well as the respondent. Therefore, in my opinion, there is no reason to permit the petitioners to amend the written statement at this stage. The petitioners have already stated in their written statement that the workmen had voluntarily resigned from duty and that they had been paid certain amounts in full and final settlement of their dues. Therefore, the pleading that the workmen had voluntarily left the service is already contained in the written statement. The contention that the written statement should be permitted to be amended by setting out the pleadings with reference to the Ramesh Chandra Sankla (supra) judgment regarding the refund of the amounts, is not tenable. In the facts of the present case, there is no undertaking given by the workmen in the present case to refund the amounts during the pendency of their reference. Therefore an amendment to seek disposal of the reference without completion of the hearing would be of no consequence and has been rightly disallowed, especially since evidence has already been led by the parties. 4. Hence, the writ petition is rejected. 5. The Labour Court shall decide all issues together. ..... 4 W.P.NO.5162/10 5 W.P.NO.5162/10