Dismissed¶22

Ashish Ashok Kawde v. Dhammapal Ramdas Shirsath

Bombay HC7 Apr 2026WP/3565/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Employees Compensation Act; amendment of pleading in pending compensation application; mode and nature of salary payment; Labour Court-2 Aurangabad; Exhibit-U-9; WCA C No.13/2025; beneficial and welfare legislation; no prejudice; written statement and cross-examination; evidence not commenced; LIC v. Sanjeev Builders (AIR 2022 SC 4256); writ petition dismissed. WP 3565/2026, Bombay HC Aurangabad Bench, Chapalgaonkar J, 07.04.2026.

What did the court decide?

The compensation claim arises under a beneficial and welfare legislation, and the amendment introduced changes only as regards the mode of payment of salary; the respondent-petitioner of the amendment can be refuted by filing a written statement and cross-examining the applicant, so no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner-employer. ¶17

Ashish Ashok Kawde vs Dhammapal Ramdas Shirsath — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the Labour Court Commissioner's order allowing the respondent's amendment to paragraph no.12 of his compensation application (relating to the mode and nature of the salary-payment transaction) could stand, notwithstanding the petitioner-employer's contention that the amendment would change the nature of the claim.

¶16

Court's answer

¶17

Ratio / Principle

It is difficult to countenance the submissions of counsel (Mr. Joshi) that the amendment would change the nature of the dispute.

¶17

Key takeaways

Since recording of evidence in the proceeding before the Labour Court had not commenced, the amendment at that stage could certainly be allowed without any impediment, in light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Anr.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 3565 of 2026 (Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench; S. G. Chapalgaonkar, J.; decided 07.04.2026) - DISMISSED. Petitioner Ashish Ashok Kawde (employer) challenged the order dated 22.01.2026 passed below Exhibit-U-9 by the In-charge Commissioner for ECA & Judge, Labour Court-2, Aurangabad in Application WCA C No.13/2025, which allowed respondent Dhammapal Ramdas Shirsath's amendment to paragraph no.12 of his application under the Employees' Compensation Act, changing the pleaded mode and nature of the salary-payment transaction (wages earlier pleaded as transferred via supervisor Mr. Ismail Bhai or Mr. Kapil Hivrale). The Court held that the claim falls under beneficial and welfare legislation; the amendment concerned the mode of payment of salary alone and could be met by written statement and cross-examination, causing no prejudice; recording of evidence had not commenced, so the amendment could be allowed without impediment in light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Anr. (AIR 2022 SC 4256). The writ petition was dismissed.

¶1

922-wp-3565-2026.odt

¶2

(1)

¶3

2026:BHC-AUG:15012

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 3565 OF 2026

¶6

ASHISH ASHOK KAWDE VERSUS

¶7

DHAMMAPAL RAMDAS SHIRSATH

¶8

Mr. Rahul Joshi h/f Mr. Raviraj Tukaram Wakale, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶9

CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. DATED : 07^th APRIL, 2026.

¶10

P.C.:-

¶11

The present Writ Petition takes exception to order dated 22.01.2026 passed below Exhibit-U-9 by In-charge Commissioner for ECA & Judge, Labour Court-2, Aurangabad in Application WCA C No.13/2025, whereby application filed by respondent seeking amendment in paragraph no.12 of application has been allowed.

¶12

The respondent filed application under provision of Employees Compensation Act contending that he has suffered employment injury and respondent is liable to pay compensation. In paragraph no.12 of application, respondent had pleaded that he was employed as Chief Plumber on site of respondent. The respondent used to transfer amount of his wages in account of supervisor of site namely Mr. Ismail Bhai or through Mr. Kapil Hivrale, who is close relative of petitioner. Later on, respondent

¶13

922-wp-3565-2026.odt

¶14

(2)

¶15

filed application seeking amendment in application and seeking to bring on record changes as regards mode and nature of transaction of salary paid to him. The Commissioner allowed said application subject to cost of Rs.1000/-.

¶16

petitioner/employer submits that amendment would change nature of claim raised in suit and, therefore, such amendment could not have been permitted.

¶17

This Court finds that claim is filed for compensation under provisions of Employees Compensation Act, which is part of beneficial and welfare legislation. The applicant sought to introduce certain changes in pleading as regards to mode of payment of salary and nothing else. The respondent shall be entitled to refute aforesaid contention by filing written statement and cross-examine applicant on this point. As such, no prejudice would be caused to petitioner. It is difficult to countenance submissions of Mr. Joshi that aforesaid amendment would change nature of dispute. Even otherwise, recording of evidence in proceeding before Labour Court is not commenced. The amendment at this stage can certainly be allowed without any impediment in light of law laid down by Supreme Court in case of

¶18

922-wp-3565-2026.odt

¶19

(3)

¶20

Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders

¶21

Private Limited and Anr.¹ .

¶22