Find a Lawyer

1985 P L C 247 (1)

Petition No. FD‑171 of 1984, decided on 23^rd July, 1984.

‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 35‑‑Practice and procedure‑‑Amendment of written state ment‑‑Should not

be disallowed if it does not set up totally a new case‑‑Amendment sought that petitioner (employee) having been dismissed was out of definition of workman under S. 2(xxiii) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and award of Wage Commission could not invoke provisions of S.25‑A‑‑Labour Court refusing amendment‑‑Appellate Tribunal, in circumstances, in revision allowing amendment‑‑Revision‑ Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 38(3‑a).

Irshad Ali Mian for Petitioner.

S.M. Arif for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 18^th July, 1984.

The order, dated 28‑9‑1984 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.5, Faisalabad, rejecting the application for amendment of written statement is said to be wrong.

2. The amendment sought for was that the respondent being a dismissed person was out of the definition of workman as defined in section 2(xxviii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and that the award of the Wage Commission not being the award as defined in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, the application made by the respondent under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. 1969 based upon such an award was not maintainable. Both these points are sub judice before the High Court Lahore in various writ petitions. Even otherwise an amendment of pleadings, if it does not set up totally a new case, should not be disallowed.

3. As a result, I accept the revision and allow the proposed amendment.

A. E.

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.