- (1.) With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this writ petition is heard finally. By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 20th September, 2013 and 20th May, 2014. It is a case where on a reference, pleading was completed by the parties followed by the evidence. At the stage of final arguments, the Industrial Tribunal permitted to seek amendment in the reference. The reference dated 17th June, 1987 was then amended vide order dated 21st November, 2007. The petitioner herein raised two objections before the Industrial Tribunal, First is in regard to take the order dated 21st November, 2007 on record. It is mainly on the ground that date of original reference is of 17th June, 1987 whereas it is referred to be 16th June, 1987 in the order dated 21st November, 2007. Learned Counsel for the petitioner is fair enough to forgo the aforesaid objection being technical in nature. It seems to be nothing but a typographical error in the order dated 21st November, 2007 while referring the date of previous order of reference. In fact, vide the order dated 21st November, 2007, the previous reference dated 17th June, 1987 was amended. In view of the above, the challenge to the order dated 20th September, 2013 has not been pressed.
(2.) The issue now remains in regard to the order dated 20th May, 2014.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that once the reference has been amended, a new inning should not have been played. The respondent Sangh was required to submit statement of claim to be replied by the petitioner followed by evidence. Learned Industrial Tribunal has denied the aforesaid opportunity, rather vide the impugned order dated 20th May, 2014, it is ordered to rely on the pleading as well as evidence led by the parties previously. It is in ignorance of the fact that when the reference has been amended, proceedings would start afresh from the date of amendment in the reference. The pleading as well as evidence cannot be relied.;