JUDGMENT 1. This petition is filed being aggrieved of order dtd. 4/2/2019 (Annexure P/1) passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court no.2, Bhopal in Case no.7/2016/IDR whereby learned Labour Court allowed the application filed on behalf of the workman under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC allowing him to withdraw the claim on the basis of the contentions put forth by the respondent, petitioner herein till their written statement. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that issues were framed on 22/2/2018, amendment application was filed on 4/10/2018 therefore, after framing of the issues, trial has since commenced, no application for amendment could have been allowed. He places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vidyabai and others vs. Padmalatha and another, (2009)2 SCC 409 . Reliance is also placed on a Division Bench's decision of this Court in Mankunwarbai w/o Shantilal Patidar vs. Vinod Kumar s/o Ramsukh Patidar and others, 2010 (4) MPLJ 643 , wherein it is held that amendment of plaint cannot be allowed after the trial has commenced unless the Court comes to a conclusion that in spite of due diligence the parties could not raise the matter before the commencement of the trial. 3. Shri Gupta submits that at least five dates were taken by the plaintiff workman before moving an application for amendment after framing of the issues. It is submitted that thus there is lack of due diligence and the amendment application should have been dismissed. Shri Anoop Shrivastava supports the impugned order. 4. Heard hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the application for amendment, it is evident that workman sought amendment for quashing of the charge sheet and the enquiry report on the ground that it was if carried out behind those back is not binding on him. Earlier workman had taken appeals of dismissal without following the provisions contained in Sec. 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Later on, he sought quashing of the enquiry report. 5. It is an admitted position that this defense was taken by the present petitioner/non applicant before the Labour Court that there was no need for making compliance of Sec. 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act in asmuchas petitioner's services were terminated after completing a domestic enquiry and on recording a finding of it. 6. 5. It is an admitted position that this defense was taken by the present petitioner/non applicant before the Labour Court that there was no need for making compliance of Sec. 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act in asmuchas petitioner's services were terminated after completing a domestic enquiry and on recording a finding of it. 6. Since workman's contention is that he was never supplied with any notice for the departmental enquiry nor any enquiry was conducted in his presence and therefore, he sought to challenge those proceedings by filing an amendment application, the real test would be that whether the proposed amendment is necessary for determining the real controversy between the parties or not. 7. Admittedly, evidence of the parties had not commenced when this application for amendment was filed. Thus, in a jurisdiction exercise under the Industrial Disputes Act which is a welfare legislation, strict principles of interpretation cannot be applied. Therefore, the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vidyabai (Supra) and of this Division Bench in Mankunwarbai (Supra), are distinguishable on their own facts. Proceedings cannot be delayed on account of hyper technicalities. Since workman was apprised of action against him in terms of the written statement then he was entitled to get legal opinion and filed any application. In any case that application was filed before commencement of the evidence. Thus, order impugned when tested on the touchstone of the fact that real issues are required to be adjudged between the parties cannot be faulted with. 8. The petition fails and is dismissed.