“8. The proposed amendment is to plead about ground floor
cafeteria. The learned advocate for the opponent has
vehemently argued that the proposed amendment if allowed
will take away the admissions that the employees of the canteen
inspected are employees of the applicant. She has taken me
through the cross-examination of the applicant’s witness for his
deposition that “The canteen is located on 6th floor of the
hospital building. I claim that all employees in canteen
including cooks are our employees. The salaries of said
employees is done from the account of hospital.” I made query
to the learned advocate of the applicant how the admissions can
be taken away. He has submitted that the applicant wants to
take on record the fact that the food department is not a
canteen and it is a separate cafeteria. On query it has been
made clear that the inspected part of the hospital was on 6th
floor which is now referred as kitchen or food department by
the applicant and canteen as by opponent. The cafeteria is on
ground floor. The facts of two different provisions is requires to
be taken on record to avoid ambiguity. Earlier the fact of
canteen on ground floor which is referred as cafeteria by the
applicant was not on record. Same is also necessary to decide
the real controversy between the parties as to whether the
inspected area is factory or not. In the circumstances
amendment sought to that effect is to be allowed. However on
going through the proposed schedule I find that the schedule as
it is if taken it contains some facts contrary to the record. In
proposed para (E) to para (8) the words labelled as canteen by
ESIC does not seem for the area of cafeteria. So in my opinion
those words from the proposed sub-para (E) to para (8) of the
application need not be allowed. The pleading shall not contain
law points and citations. Only facts can be allowed to be
pleaded. Hence, the proposed amendment for reproducing
sections of ESI Act and citations etc. is to be rejected. The
relevant para necessary to decide real controversy between the
parties and remove ambiguity are para (A), (B), (C), (D), (E),
{excluding the portion labelled as canteen by the ESIC in para
(E)} (F), (G), (I), (J), (K) and (W). Hence, that much proposed
amendment is to be rejected. Accordingly following order:
