P.K.Bahri - (1.)This petition has been filed challenging the order of the learned Sub-Judge dated July 10, 1981, by which an application seeking amendment of the plaint was dismissed. The petitioner had filed a suit for declaration on the averments that he has been in service of the respondent- Modern Bakeries '(India) Ltd. since 1968. I am told that the name of the respondent has been now changed to Modern Foods (India) Ltd. It was averred that the plaintiff/petitioner was promoted as Bakery Attendant Grade-1 in the pay-scale of Rs-234-313 on November 30, 1976 but later on he was required to continue only as Fitter Grade-11 till further orders in the pay sale of Rs.278-420 vide order of the even date. He has mentioned that his juniors, namely, S/Shri Uttam Singh and B.D.S.Yadav have been given the higher pay-scale of Rs. 340-575 and he is also entitled to be placed in the higher pay-scale of Rs. 340-575.
(2.)After concluding of the evidence before the arguments could be heard, an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure was moved seeking amendment of the plaint to take the plea that the respondent/defendant although is a public limited company under the Companies Act, still as it is wholly controlled and managed by the Government and about 99% of the shares are held by the Government, the Government is having administrative and financial powers over the said company, thus, the same is a State or atleast an authority as understood by Article 12 of the Constitution and thus, was not entitled to discriminate between the different employees and was bound to grant same treatment to the petitioner as it was granted to his juniors. Some other amendments were also sought which are not important inasmuch as one of the amendments sought was that the respondent is an industry and the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act are applicable. The learned Sub Judge was right in declining the amendment regarding taking of plea that the respondent is an industry and the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act are applicable because the petitioner had not chosen the forum of Industrial Disputes Act for mitigating his grievances and had chosen to file a civil suit.
(3.)As far as the amendment in respect of taking the plea that the respondent is a State or authority as understood by Article 12 of the Constitution of India is concerned, in my opinion, the said amendment ought to have been allowed as it did not amount to in any manner setting up any new case because the petitioner has already pleaded that the respondent had acted in a discriminating manner inasmuch as the juniors of the petitioner have been placed in the -higher pay-scale and without any reason the petitioner has not been provided the higher pay-scale.