Judgment Amar Dutt, J. 1. Satbir Singh has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the order dated October 20, 1994 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat. 2. According to the averments contained in the petition, the services of Satbir Singh, petitioner were terminated on November 13, 1987 by respondent No.2 in contravention of provisions of Sec.25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short the Act) and when no settlement could be arrived at despite service of notice of demand, Annexure P.1 the Labour Conciliation Officer had sent his failure report to the Government of Haryana who in turn had referred the following dispute for adjudication: Whether the termination/retrenchment of Satbir Singh is legal and valid. If not to what relief he is entitled? 3. Before the Court the petitioner had filed his statement of claim. Respondent No.2 had filed a written statement. In the written statement, the stand of respondent No.2 was that as the termination falls within Sec.2 (oo) (bb) of the Act and therefore the provisions of Sec.25-F of the Act are not applicable. During the pendency of the dispute, respondent No.2 had moved an application seeking amendment of the written statement to incorporate the following four preliminary objections: "that there was no office of the respondent in the territory of Haryana during the year 1990 when demand notice was served. Accordingly the Government of Haryana is not competent to make the reference for lack of jurisdiction on account of being not appropriate government at the relevant time. Hence, reference is not competent on this ground. That there was no industry in existence within the territorial jurisdiction of Haryana in the year 1990 when demand notice was served. Accordingly the reference after the closure of the office at Karnal in Haryana is not competent. Reference needs rejection on this ground too. That applicant is not entitled to claim any relief after the closure of the office at Karnal where applicant was employed. The provisions of Sec.25-F are not attracted on account of closure. Reference is bad for this reason also. That the demand notice was served after nearly about 2 1/2 years and as such reference is hit by the principal of delay and latches. " 4. This amendment has been allowed by the impugned order subject to payment of Rs.200.00 as costs. Reference is bad for this reason also. That the demand notice was served after nearly about 2 1/2 years and as such reference is hit by the principal of delay and latches. " 4. This amendment has been allowed by the impugned order subject to payment of Rs.200.00 as costs. It is this amendment which the petitioner seeks to challenge on the ground that by way of amendment, the management was seeking to introduce a totally new case of closure which had not been referred to for adjudication nor was the question incidental to the question of the validity of the termination of service of the petitioner so as to enable respondent No.1 to adjudicate upon the same. It was further submitted that the amendment at a stage when the reference has been pending for over four years should not have been allowed as it would cause serious prejudice to the workman inasmuch as by turning the case into one of closure, the respondent is seeking to defeat the reference. 5. On behalf of the respondent, the petition is opposed merely on the ground that having accepted the costs awarded to him the petitioner cannot in law be allowed to challenge the impugned order. This objection was orally taken during arguments although nothing in writing was brought on record. The petitioner has placed on record affidavit of Karan Singh, his authorised representative in which it has been categorically stated that he had not received any costs in the Court of the Presiding Officer from the respondent-management. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully considered the respective submissions made by them. 7. The main objection with regard to the maintainability of the petition does not survive in view of the affidavit of Karan Singh, the, contents whereof have not been controverted by the respondent management. In view of this, I proceed to deal with the grounds on which the impugned order is being assailed. 8. The main objection to the amendment which has been put forth is that the same seeks to widen the scope of the reference and raises questions which are not incidental to the disposal of the reference made by respondent No.1. In view of this, I proceed to deal with the grounds on which the impugned order is being assailed. 8. The main objection to the amendment which has been put forth is that the same seeks to widen the scope of the reference and raises questions which are not incidental to the disposal of the reference made by respondent No.1. As already indicated, the petitioner had raised a dispute with regard to termination of his services with the result that the appropriate Government had required the Labour Court to determine the legality and validity of termination of service of Satbir Singh. In the written statement, originally filed by the respondent, the plea had been taken to the effect that the termination was in order because the services of the workman had automatically come to an end on the expiry of his contract. It had further been indicated in the written statement that the workman was employed against a temporary vacancy for a period of two years which had been extended for another period of one year. They had developed a dealer i. e. Rama Motors, Karnal who had started looking after the sale of tractors and the office where the petitioner was working had been discontinued. It is further indicated in the written statement that the demand notice which was served after four years of the termination order indicates that the allegations made therein are afterthought. Through the amendment the management had only sought to formulate the preliminary objections on the basis of legal inference which he would be seeking to draw from the stand taken by him in the original written statement. In these circumstances without the factual assertion which provide the basis of the preliminary objections which had already been pleaded in the written statement, the amendment sought for was not seeking to change the basis of defence and, therefore, respondent No.1 did not commit any error of jurisdiction when he allowed the same. In my view, the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity which would require rectification in the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court and, therefore, has to be upheld. 9. There is no merit in the revision petition which is accordingly dismissed.