NIRMAL SINGH, J. - (1.) THIS petition is directed against the order of Labour Court, Chandigarh dated 2.12.1991 vide which an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the written statement filed by the management was dismissed.
(2.) RESPONDENT No. 2 filed an application for payment of wages for the period from 31.1.1989 to 14.8.1989. The workman was charge-sheeted vide charge-sheet dated 31.1.1989 for committing misconduct on 30.1.1989 for the same period. During the pendency of the application, an enquiry was conducted against the workman in connection with the charge-sheet. It was alleged that the charge- sheet was proved against the workman. Petitioner-management seeks permission to amend the written statement. The amendment sought is as under :- "That the management has conducted enquiry against the workman in connection with the charge-sheet dated 23.12.1988, 30.1.1989 and 2.2.1989 and on the basis of the enquiry the absence period of the workman from 18.12.1987 to 30.1.1989 has been confirmed and from second half of 30.1.1989 to 2.2.1989 has also been confirmed. Since the charges have been proved in the enquiry, therefore, the matter in question is a complicated question of law and can only be looked into under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and hence the claim application deserves to be filed. In case the enquiry is found to be vitiated on any ground then management prays to allow him to prove the charges before the Hon'ble Court to justify his stand." At the hearing, the learned counsel for the management submitted that the enquiry report came during the pendency of the petition filed by the workman and the charge against the workman has been proved in the enquiry. He submitted that the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court has erroneously dismissed the application of the management on the flimsy ground that the management is adopting the delaying tactics. On the other hand, Shri O.P. Batra, learned counsel for the workman submitted that the Presiding Officer has rightly dismissed the application as the management is adopting the delaying tactics. He submitted that the workman has closed the evidence on 15.1.1991 and the application has been moved by the management after availing the opportunity of leading evidence.
(3.) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contention raised by the learned counsel for the parties.;