Dismissed

Dtv Prasad v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC3 Dec 2018WPC/2865/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismissed a writ petition challenging the Labour Court's rejection of a late amendment application. The Plaintiff attempted to add foundational facts about job nature at the final stage, which the High Court held was unjustified and deprived of merit.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the Labour Court order was dismissed. The interim application I.A. No.9888 of 2018 was also dismissed.

Dtv Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (L) No.2865 of 2018 With

¶2

I.A. No.9888 of 2018

¶3

¶4

DTV Prasad.

¶5

.......... Petitioner.

¶6

-Versus-

¶7

The State of Jharkhand.

¶8

The T.R.F. Limited, having registered office at 11, Station road, Burmamines, Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum (Jharkhand). .......... Respondents.

¶9

----- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶10

----For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Dubey, Advocate For the State : Mr. P. P. Roy, A.C. to G.P.IV -----

¶11

Order No.05 Date: 03.12.2018

¶12

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 7^th April, 2018 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur in I.D. Case No.05 of 2012 (Part of Annexure-2 to the writ petition), whereby the learned Presiding Officer has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner-workman dated 10^th February, 2018, seeking amendment in the petition filed by him on 16^th April, 2012.

¶13

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and looking to the contents of the writ petition as well as the impugned order dated 7^th April, 2018, it appears that the petitioner’s amendment application dated 10^th February, 2018 has been rejected primarily due to the reason that the amendment seeking insertion of additional facts regarding nature of his job/engagement was sought by the petitioner at the fag end of the proceeding when the same was fixed for argument. The petitioner did not show any justification as to why the said amendment was sought at the last stage of the proceeding. It has also been observed that if the amendment sought by the petitioner is allowed, the case will go to the stage of “denovo trial”.

¶14

In my considered opinion, the impugned order dated 7^th April, 2018 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur appears to be justified as the facts sought to be introduced by the petitioner by way of amendment application dated 10^th February, 2018 at the fag end of the case were, in fact, the

¶15

-2-

¶16

foundational facts, which are required to be incorporated by the petitioner at the time of filing of the application under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 itself. Once the evidences by both the parties are adduced, one of the contesting parties cannot be permitted to add such facts which are foundational in nature at such a belated stage. Thus, I find no infirmity in the impugned order dated 7^th April, 2018 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur. The writ petition being devoid of any merit is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶17

I.A. No.9888 of 2018 is also dismissed.

¶18

Sanjay/

¶19

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

Dtv Prasad v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dtv Prasad v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rameshwar Mahto Vs State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Laksham Prasad Baranwal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Balbhadra Das Vs Collectariate

Ayodhya Ram And Ors. Vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Akaank Water Suppliers Through Its Proprietors Chandra Shekhar Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Radhey Shyam Singh And Ors. Vs Co. Operative