ORDER : The above Writ Petition is filed challenging the order dated 21.9.2021 passed on I.A.No.3 in Application No.18/2019 by the II Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Labour Court’). 2. It is the case of the Petitioner, who appears as party-in-person that, he was employed with a company managed by the Respondents under the name and style M/s Amagi Media Pvt. Ltd., from 5.8.2010. That he tendered his resignation in the month of November, 2015 giving three months’ notice period from 1.11.2015 to 31.1.2016 and he was issued relieving letter on 1.2.2016. 3. On 19.4.2017 the Petitioner filed Application No.8/2017 (renumbered as 18/2019) under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'ID Act') against the Respondents before the Labour Court seeking for the following reliefs : "(a) To pay the arrears of consultancy fixed fee as per the consultancy letter issued to the applicant dated 19.10.2015 at the fixed compensation of Rs.2,08,333/- (Rupees Two Lakhs eight thousand and three hundred thirty three only) with effect from dated 01.02.2016 to till the date of disposal of this application due to the applicant. (b) To pay the interest @ 18% on the total amount due as fixed consultancy fee to the applicant from the due date i.e. dated 01.02.2016 to till the date of disposal of this application. (c) To direct the respondents to issue grant notice for 2000 stock/shares options that entitle the applicant to acquire 2000 fully vested Class A Equity Share in the company (Amagi Media Labs Pvt Ltd) at Rs.10/- exercise price." 4. The Application filed by the Petitioner was resisted by the Respondents on various grounds, inter alia, that the Application under Section 33(C)(2) of the ID Act was not maintainable; that the Petitioner was not a workman; that the Application has been filed against the officers of the company and not the company; that the officers not being the employers cannot be made as parties to the Application or that the provisions of Section 33(C)(2) of the ID Act cannot be invoked against the officers of the company. Various other defences were also taken by the Respondents alleging all mala fides as well as other defences on the merits of the claim made by the Petitioner. 5. Various other defences were also taken by the Respondents alleging all mala fides as well as other defences on the merits of the claim made by the Petitioner. 5. In view of the specific defences taken by the Respondents, vide the statement of objections filed before the Labour Court, the Petitioner filed a rejoinder, wherein in the cause title to the rejoinder, the Respondents were shown different from how they were arrayed in the original Application. The Petitioner also filed his evidence affidavit by showing the Respondents different from as shown in the original Application. 6. The Petitioner was specifically cross-examined by the Counsel for the Respondents before the Labour Court regarding this aspect of the matter i.e., regarding non maintainability of the original Application against the Respondents. Subsequent to the cross-examination of the Petitioner, the Petitioner sought to adduce further evidence, at which stage he filed IA.3 under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CPC’) and Section 11 of the ID Act to amend the original Application. The amendments sought vide IA.3 were with regard to description of the Respondents as also certain additional prayers. 7. The Application for amendment was vehemently opposed by the Respondents and objections to IA.3 were also filed. The Labour Court, vide its order dated 21.9.2021 dismissed IA.3. Being aggrieved, the present Writ Petition is filed. 8. It is the contention of the Petitioner that the amendments are necessary for consideration of the original Application; that the same was filed at the earliest point of time without any delay; that the delay in filing IA.3 was due to the fact that the Respondents have sought for transfer of the proceedings in the Labour Court and had also petitioned this Court regarding transfer of the proceedings; that it is only consequent to the contention regarding transfer being adjudicated that, the Petitioner was able to seek for amendment and accordingly filed I.A.3. 9. In furtherance of his contentions, the Petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Anr., [Civil Appeal No.5909 of 2022 (arising out of SLP(C) No.22443/2019) DD 1.9.2022]. 10. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the Respondents vehemently opposed the relief sought in the present Writ Petition. 10. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the Respondents vehemently opposed the relief sought in the present Writ Petition. The Respondents have also filed their objections to the present Writ Petition. It is the contention of the Respondents that the Petitioner being an Advocate cannot plead ignorance of law and procedure; that the trial had already commenced and no plausible explanation has been afforded by the Petitioners to satisfy the criteria stipulated in the proviso to order VI Rule 17 of the CPC; that a valuable defence taken by the Respondents before the Labour Court would be taken away, if the amendment application is allowed; that the Labour Court has considered all aspects of the matter while passing the order dated 21.9.2021 and the same is not liable to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction contained under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, he seeks for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 11. I have considered the contentions put forth by the Petitioner, who appeared in person as well as the learned Counsel for the Respondents and have perused the material on record. The question that arises for consideration is, 'Whether the order dated 21.9.2021 passed by the Labour Court on IA.3 is liable to be interfered with?' 12. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner who is the original Applicant in Application No.18/2019 has specifically made a claim with regard to his earlier employment. However, while making the said claim certain officials of his erstwhile employer have been arrayed as Respondents. Further, with regard to the merits of the claim, various specific defences have been taken by the Respondents before the proceedings in the Labour Court. After the statement of objections was filed by the Respondents before the Labour Court, the Petitioner has also adduced evidence. The application for amendment had been filed by the Petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. Rule 17 of order VI of the CPC., is extracted hereinbelow for ready reference : "17. After the statement of objections was filed by the Respondents before the Labour Court, the Petitioner has also adduced evidence. The application for amendment had been filed by the Petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. Rule 17 of order VI of the CPC., is extracted hereinbelow for ready reference : "17. Amendment of pleadings.-The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties: Provided that no application for amendment shall 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." (Emphasis supplied) 13. The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC., specifically mandates that no application be allowed unless the Court comes to the conclusion that despite due diligence the party could not have raised the matter before commencement of the trial. 14. Having regard to the fact that IA.3 was filed after commencement of the trial, the Applicant - Petitioner ought to specifically pleaded due satisfaction of the proviso contained in Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. In the affidavit accompanying IA.3, the only reason that has been stated by the Petitioner for not presenting the proposed amendments at the time of presenting the main Application was “unfamiliarity with legal procedures and inadequate legal knowledge of the Applicant”. This aspect of the matter has been specifically dealt with by the Labour Court and has recorded the following findings : "9. ……….. The records indicate that the applicant had knowledge about requirement of proposed amendment prior to 05.08.2017 itself. This court noticed that the applicant instead of filing application for amendment he choose to adopt the procedure of making change in the cause title, in rejoinder as well in the chief examination affidavit, which is not known to the procedural law and which creates confusion in further proceedings before this court as well before any other higher courts if the matter take up before any other higher Courts. The applicant did not deny the contention of the respondents that this applicant is the practicing advocate having sufficient legal knowledge. The applicant did not deny the contention of the respondents that this applicant is the practicing advocate having sufficient legal knowledge. Considering all these aspects, this court do not find good and sufficient reasons to believe that the applicant had no adequate legal knowledge. and this is the cause for delay in filing this application." 15. Further, the Labour Court with regard to the merits of the contentions of the proposed application has held as follows : "11. After going through the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 5, 7 and 8, after considering the entire facts of the above said reported decision and after considering the facts and circumstances of the present case on hand, this court noticed that in this present case on hand, no good and sufficient reasons are established for delay in filing this application. Further this court observed that if the proposed amendment is allowed to amend, it would change the nature of the claim and also it would change the responsibility of the respondents and it leads to change the entire nature of the application." 16. It is clear from the aforementioned that, the Labour Court has considered all aspects of the matter and passed the order dated 21.9.2021 which is impugned in the present Writ Petition. Specific defences have been taken by the Respondents to the claim made by the Petitioner. The said objections were taken at the earliest point of time while filing the statement of objections. Having noticed the said objections, the Petitioner has proceeded to file his rejoinder as well as adduced his evidence. The Respondents have cross-examined the Petitioner regarding the specific defences taken by the Respondents. In view of the aforementioned, if the application for amendment filed by the Petitioner in IA.3 before the Labour Court is allowed, it would set at naught the various contentions taken by the Respondents which have also been acted upon in the proceedings before the Labour Court. The averments made by the Petitioner in the affidavit accompanying IA.3 with regard to the satisfaction of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC cannot be countenanced in view of the categorical finding recorded by the Labour Court in this regard. 17. Normally, Courts are liberal in granting amendments. The averments made by the Petitioner in the affidavit accompanying IA.3 with regard to the satisfaction of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC cannot be countenanced in view of the categorical finding recorded by the Labour Court in this regard. 17. Normally, Courts are liberal in granting amendments. However, having regard to the proviso contained in Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, if the trial has commenced and by virtue of the amendment, if the defences taken by the other side would be taken away, such amendment will not be granted. 18. The Supreme Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited, AIR 2022 SC 4256 has summarized its conclusions as follows : "70. Our final conclusions may be summed up thus: (i) Order II Rule 2 CPC operates as a bar against a subsequent suit if the requisite conditions for application thereof are satisfied and the field of amendment of pleadings falls far beyond its purview. The plea of amendment being barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC is, thus, misconceived and hence negatived. (ii) All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word “shall”, in the latter part of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. (iii) The prayer for amendment is to be allowed (i) if the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties, and (ii) to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided (a) the amendment does not result in injustice to the other side, (b) by the amendment, the parties seeking amendment does not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side and (c) the amendment does not raise a time barred claim, resulting in divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations). (iv) A prayer for amendment is generally required to be allowed unless (i) by the amendment, a time barred claim is sought to be introduced, in which case the fact that the claim would be time barred becomes a relevant factor for consideration, (ii) the amendment changes the nature of the suit, (iii) the prayer for amendment is malafide, or (iv) by the amendment, the other side loses a valid defence. (v) In dealing with a prayer for amendment of pleadings, the court should avoid a hyper-technical approach, and is ordinarily required to be liberal especially where the opposite party can be compensated by costs. (vi) Where the amendment would enable the court to pin-pointedly consider the dispute and would aid in rendering a more satisfactory decision, the prayer for amendment should be allowed. (vii) Where the amendment merely sought to introduce an additional or a new approach without introducing a time barred cause of action, the amendment is liable to be allowed even after expiry of limitation. (viii) Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint. (ix) Delay in applying for amendment alone is not a ground to disallow the prayer. Where the aspect of delay is arguable, the prayer for amendment could be allowed and the issue of limitation framed separately for decision. (x) Where the amendment changes the nature of the suit or the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint, the amendment must be disallowed. Where, however, the amendment sought is only with respect to the relief in the plaint, and is predicated on facts which are already pleaded in the plaint, ordinarily the amendment is required to be allowed. (xi) Where the amendment is sought before commencement of trial, the court is required to be liberal in its approach. The court is required to bear in mind the fact that the opposite party would have a chance to meet the case set up in amendment. As such, where the amendment does not result in irreparable prejudice to the opposite party, or divest the opposite party of an advantage which it had secured as a result of an admission by the party seeking amendment, the amendment is required to be allowed. As such, where the amendment does not result in irreparable prejudice to the opposite party, or divest the opposite party of an advantage which it had secured as a result of an admission by the party seeking amendment, the amendment is required to be allowed. Equally, where the amendment is necessary for the court to effectively adjudicate on the main issues in controversy between the parties, the amendment should be allowed. (See Vijay Gupta v. Gagninder Kr. Gandhi, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1897)" 19. The amendment sought by the Petitioner would be contrary to the stipulation contained in paragraphs (iii)(ii)(b) and (c) as well as iv(iv) of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 20. Further, the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is required to be exercised only when a subordinate Court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or the jurisdiction though available has been exercised by the Court in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby (See: Surya Dev Rai V. Ram Chander Rai, reported in (2003) 6 SCC 675 ). 21. In view of the aforementioned and in view of the fact that the Petitioner has not been able to point out any error of jurisdiction by the Labour Court in passing the order rejecting the amendment, the Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.