( 1 ) THE respondent has appeared in person and states that he is unable to engage a counsel despite the fact that he had contacted the Delhi high Court Legal Services Authority for the said purpose. Ms. Jyoti Singh, advocate, who is present in Court today, is appointed as an amicus curiae and requested to assist the Court. ( 2 ) WITH the consent of the parties, the matter has been taken up for hearing and disposal at the admission stage. ( 3 ) THE petitioner has assailed the order dated November 18, 2006, passed by the presiding Officer, Labour Court on an application moved by the petitioner/ management seeking amendment of the written statement. The brief facts which are relevant for deciding the petition are that on September 9, 2004, the respondent/workman had filed his statement of claim before the Labour Court, alleging therein that he was in employment of the petitioner/management since March, 2001, and his services were illegally terminated on july 13, 2004, without giving him any notice. The petitioner/management filed its written statement on January 12, 2004, wherein the claim of the respondent/workman was denied. Thereafter, trial commenced and matter was fixed for recording evidence on March 3, 2005. It is not denied by either of the parties that the respondent/workman is at present being cross-examined by the petitioner/management and that the matter is now listed before the Court for recording further evidence on March 6, 2007. ( 4 ) IN the meantime, the petitioner/ management, filed an application on March 2, 2006, seeking amendment of the written statement by incorporating a new para as preliminary objection, stating inter alia that the labour Court in Delhi lacked the terrirorial jurisdiction to entertain the claim of the applicant/respondent as he was employed at the noida factory of the petitioner/management and only the Labour Courts situated in the State of U. P. , shall have the jurisdiction to try and entertain the petition. Reply to the said application was filed by the respondent/workman stating inter alia that the plea of the petitioner/management, seeking amendment is liable to be rejected as no new plea can be entertained once the trial starts and that there are no provisions under the Industrial disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') for making such an amendment. Reply to the said application was filed by the respondent/workman stating inter alia that the plea of the petitioner/management, seeking amendment is liable to be rejected as no new plea can be entertained once the trial starts and that there are no provisions under the Industrial disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') for making such an amendment. It was also submitted by the respondent/workman that it is only an attempt to delay the proceedings pending before the Labour Court. ( 5 ) AFTER hearing the parties, the Presiding officer, has held that no such amendment application by the management ought to be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial and that in the present case, as trial had begun on march 3, 2005, and such an objection was available to the petitioner/management at the time of filing of the written statement, it was not a fit case where the amendment ought to be allowed. With these observations, the application was rejected. It has been argued by counsel for the petitioner that the said rejection is erroneous, for the reason that the Labour court is vested with the power to allow amendment in the pleadings and the said power can be invoked to do substantial justice and to avoid multiplicity of judicial proceedings between the parties and that the provisions of c. P. C. are not strictly applicable to the proceedings initiated under the Industrial disputes Act. It is stated that the issue raised by the petitioner in the application goes to the root of the matter and is very material for deciding the issue between the parties. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the following judgments: (i) Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central government Industrial Tribunal and Others, air 1981 SC 606 : (1980) Suppl 1 SCC 420 : 1981-I-LLJ-327. (ii) Central Bank of India v. Central government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour court and Others. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the following judgments: (i) Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central government Industrial Tribunal and Others, air 1981 SC 606 : (1980) Suppl 1 SCC 420 : 1981-I-LLJ-327. (ii) Central Bank of India v. Central government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour court and Others. ( 6 ) COUNSEL for the respondent on the other hand submits that the petitioner knew from the very beginning that the respondent/workman was working at the Noida factory of the petitioner/management and that rigours of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17, C. P. C. come into play and the same is a bar on the petitioner for being granted relief of amendment, as trial of the matter has not shown due diligence so as to entitle it to seek amendment at such a belated stage. It is further submitted on behalf of the respondent that the whole attempt on the part of the petitioner/ management is to delay the proceedings and therefore cause irreparable loss and injury to the respondent/workman. ( 7 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records. No doubt the provisions of Section 11 of the Act confer ample powers on the Labour Court for achieving the object of effectively investigating and settling the industrial disputes between the management and the workman and for achieving the said purpose, general principles of law as also the principles of natural justice have to be adhered to. There is also no gainsaying the fact that there are ample powers conferred on the Tribunal to achieve the aforesaid purpose of settling the dispute inter se the parties and for discharging its functions effectively by devising its own procedure in the interest of justice. It is no longer res integra that strict interpretation of the rules of procedure are not applicable to the proceedings before Labour court/tribunal, but essentially rules of natural justice are to be observed in such proceedings. It is no longer res integra that strict interpretation of the rules of procedure are not applicable to the proceedings before Labour court/tribunal, but essentially rules of natural justice are to be observed in such proceedings. ( 8 ) WHILE there is substance in the objection taken on behalf of the respondent/workman that petitioner/management was not diligent in taking all the pleas that were available to it, at the time of filing written statement and the amendment sought to be incorporated by the petitioner in the written statement is based on facts which were well within the knowledge of the petitioner/management, however, keeping in mind the fact that if the aforesaid objection as sought to be raised by the petitioner in the application for amendment, goes to the root of the matter and if an issue is not framed thereon, then at the end of the day, the entire process of adjudication may be rendered nugatory thus causing further delay in adjudicating the dispute raised by the workman to his detriment. It is also with the intention of shortening the life span of the present writ petition and ensuring that not that the present round of litigation initiated by the petitioner/management by filing the present petition, assailing the order dated november 18, 2006, does not linger on, this court has taken up the matter at the admission stage itself for disposal. ( 9 ) THUS, the present petition is allowed, subject to the petitioner compensating the respondent/workman by paying a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as costs and another sum of Rs. 5,000/-towards the litigation expenses to the respondent. ( 10 ) THE petitioner is, accordingly, directed to file the amended written statement before the presiding Officer, Labour Court on the next date of hearing with an advance copy to counsel for the respondent, who shall file rejoinder thereto within two weeks thereafter. No further opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner for the said purpose. The payment as directed above shall be made to the respondent within a period of one week from today, and in any case on or before March 6, 2007. The Labour Court is requested to make an endeavour to dispose of the matter expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months. With these directions, the petition stands disposed of.