Judgment RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally as a notice of final disposal was issued to the respondent and the respondent is duly served with the notice. 2. By this petition, the petitioner-Bank impugns an order passed by the Industrial Court, Yavatmal on 10.11.2011, rejecting an application filed by the petitioner for amendment of the written statement. 3. The respondent-Union had filed a reference in the representative capacity before the Industrial Court praying for an award in respect of the seventeen demands of the respondent-Union. The petitioner filed the written statement/preliminary objection on 13.08.2009. On 29.09.2011, the petitioner-Bank filed an application for permission to amend the written statement. It was stated in the proposed amendment that the respondent-Union was having less number of members than required and, therefore, they could not have instituted the proceedings in representative capacity for demands of the employees of the petitioner-Bank. The respondent-Union opposed the amendment application. The Industrial Court, by an order dated 10.11.2011, rejected the application. 4. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the amendment application and the impugned order, it appears that the Industrial Court was not justified in rejecting the amendment application. The facts stated in the proposed amendment did not change the nature of the pleadings of the parties and were based on subsequent events, which occurred during the pendency of the reference. By the proposed amendment, the petitioner-Bank merely wanted to plead that the respondent-Union could not have filed the proceedings in the Industrial Court as it was not a recognized Union and there was some other Union comprising of 65 employees, which was duly recognized. Since by the proposed amendment, the petitioner-Bank wanted to plead that the reference could not have been entertained and was liable to be dismissed, in view of the fact that the respondent-Union was not a recognized Union, the Industrial Court ought to have allowed the amendment application filed by the petitioner-Bank. The proposed amendment was necessary for effectively deciding the controversy between the parties and, hence, the amendment application ought to have been allowed. 5. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 10.11.2011 is quashed and set aside. The amendment application filed by the petitioner-Bank is allowed and the petitioner-Bank is permitted to amend the written statement. 5. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 10.11.2011 is quashed and set aside. The amendment application filed by the petitioner-Bank is allowed and the petitioner-Bank is permitted to amend the written statement. The Industrial Court is, however, directed to decide the reference as early as possible. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.