KETKI RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE LTD v. SMITA MANOJ JAWADE

2

statement.

3. A complaint has been filed by the respondent, praying for quashing the chargesheet and the departmental proceedings against the respondent. This is a second round of litigation between the parties. In the first round, the parties had approached this Court challenging the order of the Industrial Court dated 17/12/2004, refusing to review the order dated 25^thFebruary, 2002, by which the petitioner was directed to pay Subsistence Allowance to the respondent in accordance with the Rules. In the said petition, vide order dated 19^thDecember, 2005, certain directions were issued by this Court.

4. By way of application below Exh. 31, the petitioner sought leave to amend written statement. By way of amendment, the petitioner wanted to incorporate that the suspension was already revoked by the order dated 30^thSeptember, 1999. It also wanted to bring on record that since the respondent refused to receive the order, on 18^thDecember, 2004, the order was sent by Registered Post A.D. The amendment application came to be rejected after observing that in the earlier petition which came to be decided on 19^th

3

December, 2005, the petitioner had not raised any ground in respect of revocation of the suspension order. It has been found that the amendment application which was filed after the order of the this Court, was filed to give a go-bye to the orders passed by this Court. In that view of the matter, the application came to be rejected. On the same ground, the review application also came to be rejected vide order dated 7^thJune, 2006.

5. Shri Killor, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that insofar as the order passed in the earlier petition is concerned, it is the subject matter of challenge before the Division Bench in L.P.A. It is submitted that in the said L.P.A. the Division Bench of this Court has issued notices and also granted stay to the withdrawal of the amount. He further submitted that the non- compliance of the said order does not have any concern with the present application for amendment. He submitted that by way of amendment application, the petitioner desires to bring on record the subsequent events and hence, the amendment deserves to be allowed.

4

6. Shri Kukdey, on the contrary, submitted that by way of amendment a totally false story is sought to be brought on record by the petitioner. It is submitted that the alleged order of revocation of suspension has never been served and received by the respondent. He submitted that the proposed amendment would change the nature of the dispute and, therefore, same has been rightly rejected by the learned trial Court.

7. Perusal of the proposed amendment would show that by way of proposed amendment, the petitioner seeks to bring on record the subsequent events. Whether the revocation order has actually been passed or served and received back by the petitioner is a matter of evidence. If the pleadings to that effect are incorporated, the petitioner would be duty bound to prove that the said revocation order was either issued or received by the respondent. If such an order is not, in fact, received by the respondent, the respondent, by examining the witness or by leading any evidence, can falsify the case of the petitioner. Whether the factual position that is sought to be brought on record by way of amendment, is true or false, cannot be gone into at this stage. In my view, party cannot be prevented from

5

placing on record the subsequent event. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to allow the petition.

8. Petition is allowed. Impugned orders dated 21/3/2006 and 7/6/2006 are quashed and set aside. The application for amendment of the written statement filed by the petitioner below exh.31, is allowed.

9. It is reported that on the last date when the matter was fixed, it was agreed between the parties that the matter would not be gone further before the learned Industrial Court. However, the learned Industrial Court has passed an order of no cross-examination against the present petitioner. Shri Kukdey, the learned counsel for the respondent, fairly submitted that if the petitioner makes an application for permission to cross-examine the witness, he would raise no objection.

10. In that view of the matter, the learned trial Court is directed to permit the petitioner to cross-examine the witness of the respondent.

6

11. By an earlier order, the learned Industrial Court was directed to decide the complaint by 30^thFebruary, 2006. However, taking into consideration the subsequent developments, said period is extended upto 30^thJuly, 2006.

12. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no orders as to costs.

(B.R. Gavai)

Judge

RMP