Find a Lawyer

Petition No. QSA-685 of 1981, decided on 13^th July, 1982.

---S.25-A--Application for amendment in written statement made after ten months--Rejected for not being given at earliest opportunity- Amendment sought for touching jurisdiction of Court--Held: It was duty of Court first to decide whether it had jurisdiction--Amendment if necessary, could be allowed at any stage of case and inconvenience to respondent compensated with costs.

Malik Bashir Ahmad for Petitioner.

M.A. Hamid Awan for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 4th July, 1982.

In this revision the order dated 14-11-1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.3, Lahore at Ferozewala, has been challenged whereby the application for amendment of the written statement was dismissed.

2. The plea which the petitioner wishes to take by amending the written statement is that the grievance notice served by the respondent upon the petitioner was time-barred. This is true that the application for amendment was not given at the earliest opportunity and was given after ten months of the filing of the written statement. But the amendment sought for touches the jurisdiction of the Labour Court and, therefore, should be allowed. It is the duty of every court first to decide whether it has jurisdiction. If it is held that the grievance notice was time-barred then the very grievance petition would be incompetent and the jurisdiction of the Labour Court excluded. The learned counsel for the respondent has said that no reason has been given why this plea was not taken in the written statement. The reason given is that through inadvertence such an objection could not be raised. The amendment, if necessary, can be allowed at any stage of the case. If by amendment a new case is to be set up for the adverse party, it cannot be allowed. As mentioned above, the amendment is necessary because if it i8 found that the grievance notice was in reality time-barred, the Labour Court will have no jurisdiction and the petition would be incompetent. This is true that if the amendment is allowed, the petitioner would be given opportunity to produce evidence on the point and the respondent to rebut the said evidence and thus the case to some extent would be reopened but the inconvenience to which the respondent may be put by the proposed amendment, can be compensated with costs. So, since the amendment is being sought after ten months, I allow it on payment of Rs.100 as costs to the respondent, which will be a condition for the amendment of the written statement. The revision stands accepted in the above term.

M. I.

Revision accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.