1 CGHC010277462026 2026:CGHC:32140 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 934 of 2026 Swami Traders Through Its Director -Murlidhar Makhija Swami Traders Operated By Aadhar Card Holder -Mukesh Makhija, R/o Marshi - Smile Ward, District -Bhatapara Balodabazar, (C.G.). ... Petitioner(s) versus Smt. Brihaspati Gada W/o Manoj Kumar Gada, Aged About 30 Years Aadhar No. 567633256467, R/o Village - Turma, Tehsil -Bhatapara, District - Balodabazar, (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Senior Advocate alongwith Ms. Kanchan Kalwani, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.) Order on Board 27/07/2026 1. Heard. 2. Present is a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 12.05.2026 SUMIT KUMAR Digitally signed by SUMIT KUMAR Date: 2026.07.31 11:37:52 +0530 2 passed by learned Labour Court (additional charge), Baloda Bazar in Civil Case No. E.C.Regular/3/2025, whereby the application filed by the respondent under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC has been allowed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the non-applicant before the learned Labour Court, where the respondent is prosecuting an application under Section 4 and 10 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 for compensation of amount in lieu of death of her mother, Smt. Neerabai. 4. She would further submit that the present respondent projected herself to be the legal heir of deceased Neerabai and received the compensation of Rs. 3,15,000/- under the compromise entered between the parties. However, after about 3 years of the date of incident, she made an application before the learned Labour Court, Baloda Bazar for compensation under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923. In the said application also, she projected herself to be the legal heir of the deceased Smt. Neerabai but after about one year of the filing of the said application, she made an application for amendment in the pleadings, by which she sought to be amended the pleading by saying that though she is the legal heir of the deceased Neerabai but she is partially dependent upon her only to meet out the requirements under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923. By the proposed amendment, the entire nature of the application filed by the respondent has been changed, and there are material suppression and the proposed amendment has been sought for by the respondent after suppressing the material facts. The entire defence of the petitioner would be demolished if the said amendment is to be allowed. Yet, the 3 learned Labour Court has allowed the application filed by the respondent and permitted her to amend her pleadings. She would refer to the amendment application filed by the respondent (Annexure P-4) and would submit that only to bring her case under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, the application has been filed intentionally. In support of her submission, she would rely upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur vs. Bhagwan Das (Dead) by Lrs”, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511. She would further submit that the respondent is not the dependent, which is the precondition to maintain an application under the Employees' Compensation Act, and therefore, the proposed amendment application has been filed by the respondent with the oblique motive and only to extract money from the petitioner, therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and the application for amendment filed by the respondent may be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material annexed with the petition. 6. The controversy involved in the present writ petition is the application filed by the respondent under Order 6 Rule 17 by which she sought amendment in her application in Para - 6(A) with the pleading that she being the sole daughter of the deceased Neerabai, was taking care of her and partially dependent upon her income. From perusal of the original application filed by the respondent (Annexure P-2), it transpires that in Para - 2, she pleaded that she is the sole daughter of the deceased Neerabai and in Para - 6 also, she pleaded that the deceased Neerabai was employed with the petitioner and after her 4 death, she is entitled to receive the compensation amount. The respondent by way of amendment, sought insertion of Para - 6(A) in her application, which is as under: “;g fd] vkosfndk e`rdk Jherh fujk ckbZ xa/koZ dh ,d ek= iq=h gS rFkk vkosfndk gh viuh ekrk dh ns[kjs[k o lsok Jq"kok djrh Fkh ,oa vkosfndk viuh ekrk }kjk vftZr etnwjh@osru ij vkaf’kd :i ls vkfJr FkhA” 7. From perusal of the original application filed by the respondent and the amendment application filed by her, I do not find any contradictory stand taken by the respondent in her application. Although, the petitioner raised an objection that she introduced herself to be dependent upon the deceased Neerabai only to meet out the requirement under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923. 8. Though, earlier there is no averment in the application that she was dependent upon the deceased Neerabai, however, it is the pleading of the respondent that she is the sole daughter of the deceased Neerabai. The learned Labour Court, after considering the provisions of Section 2(d) of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, observed that the respondent comes under the definition of the "dependent", and therefore, allowed the application for amendment of the respondent. 9. The objection raised by the petitioner are the matter of defence which are to be taken in her written statement as well as during the cross- examination of the applicant's witness, however, the respondent cannot be restrained to amend her pleading before the learned Labour Court. The petitioner is having every right to make consequential amendment in his written statement and to cross-examine the witness or to file the documents in its rebuttal, but at this stage, it cannot be said that the 5 proposed amendment application filed by the petitioner does change the original application in its entirety and she can be restrained from amending her pleadings. The consideration in the judgment of North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur is distinguishable to the facts of the present case, and therefore, no benefit could be extended to the petitioner from the cited judgment. 10. Accordingly, I do not find any jurisdictional error or perversity in the impugned order passed by learned Labour Court. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to take all the defences available to him during the course of trial before the learned trial Court and he is also at liberty to make consequential amendment in his written statement. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE Sumit