ORDER : 1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking Writ of Mandamus, for the following relief: “........declaring the order dated 25.09.2019 in I.A. No. 281/2019 in I.D. No. 107/2011 on the file of the 4th respondent Court, as arbitrary, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, without application of mind and without any rationale basis and is also in violation of provisions of I.D. Act, 1947 and Rules made there under, by setting aside the same.....” 2. The facts of the case, as projected by the Petitioner in brief, are as follows: 2.1. Petitioner union is a registered Trade Union established with the object of promoting the welfare of the workmen in Respondent No. 1 industry, particularly for the contract labour. Due to non-conciliation on the charter of demands submitted on 28-03-2011, a reference vide proceedings No. L2/4719/2011 dated 12.08.2011 was made to the Commissioner of Labour, Andhra Pradesh in the year 2011 and it was registered as I.D. No. 107 of 2011 by the Respondent No. 4. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were impleaded in the said I.D. as respondents. 2.2. It is their case that pending the proceedings, the Respondent terminated the Work Contractor, consequently terminating the service of the workmen covered in the I.D. While so, the Petitioner-Union filed I.A. No. 281 of 2019 in the I.D. under Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [In short “I.D. Act 1947”] r/w Rule 12(1)(e) of the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Dispute Rules, 1958 [In short “A.P. I.D. Rules”] seeking amendment of its claim statement by incorporating certain facts which are required to be pleaded. Vide Order dated 25.09.2019, the Respondent No. 4 dismissed the said I.A. Aggrieved by the same, the present W.P. has been filed before this Court. Version of the Respondents in the Counter 3. Resisting the claim of the Petitioner-Union, the Respondent No. 1 filed counter inter alia stating that the Respondent No. 1 is now called as “Ramco Cements Limited.” It is also stated that quotations for arranging manpower for landing and cleaning operations in the packing unit and view of the agreement thereto, the Contractor was in obligation to comply with State and Central Labour Laws, including Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act. 3.1. 3.1. It is also averred that there is no employer-employee relationship between the Respondent industry and the workmen, that since the Work Contractor was not able to supply the workmen, the contract agreement was terminated by the management by letter dated 20.04.2011 and that the amounts due to the contractor workers were also paid, vide the Act through cheques. 3.2. It is also stated that the Respondent No. 4 rightly dismissed the I.A. holding that there is no ambiguity in the reference requiring an amendment to the claim statement and that the amendment is nothing but what has been covered under the Point No. 1 formulated by the Joint Commissioner of Labour and would cause multiplication of the proceedings. The maintainability of the present W.P. was also questioned. 4. Heard Sri M. Pitchaiah, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri M. Srikanth, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1 and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner in elaboration to what was stated in the W.P. would contend that the amendment sought for, is the crux of the case of the Petitioner and that vide Rule-12 of A.P.I.D. Rules, the respondent No. 4 is supposed to allow the I.A. He would further submit that the proposed amendment is necessary and forms the basis for charter of demand dated 28.03.011, which is the cause for the industrial dispute. Thus, learned counsel prayed to allow the W.P. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 filed written arguments stating that Respondent No. 4 rightly dismissed the I.A. He would submit that the Petitioner-Union sought for amendment of prayer seeking continuity of service, back-wages of all other benefits with interest at 12% per annum etc., It is also stated that earlier, Petitioner-Union gave an elaborate Charter of Demands dated 28.03.2011 in which, the said points sought to be included vide I.A., are already covered. It is argued that as per Section 10 of the I.D. Act, the Government is empowered to refer the dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication and that as per Rule-12 of the Rules, the Industrial Tribunal can only decide the issues made in the reference and not beyond. Thus, learned counsel prays for dismissal of the W.P. 7. On hearing the rival submissions and on considering the material on record, the question that arises for determination is: 7.1. Thus, learned counsel prays for dismissal of the W.P. 7. On hearing the rival submissions and on considering the material on record, the question that arises for determination is: 7.1. Whether the order passed by Respondent No. 4 dated 25.09.2019 declining to permit amendments sought by the Petitioner-Union is sustainable in law? Determination by the Court 8. A reference was made by the appropriate government under I.D. Act, which is pending for consideration before the Industrial Tribunal, Guntur vide I.D. No. 107 of 2011. This W.P. is filed by the trade union of the respondent No. 1 company impugning the dismissal of I.A. No. 281 of 2019 moved seeking permission to amend claim statement for inclusion of 12 demands. The Respondent No. 1 resisted the claim of amendment by filing a counter. The learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, dismissed the said application vide order dated 25.09.2019. Feeling aggrieved by the said Order, the Writ Petitioner filed the present W.P. challenging the correctness of the impugned Order passed by Respondent No. 4. 9. Initially, a Learned Single Judge of this Court, vide order dated 28.09.2022 allowed the present W.P. setting aside the impugned Order and directed the Industrial Tribunal to treat the proposed amendment as part of the pleadings. Aggrieved thereby, Respondent No. 1 herein preferred a W.A. No. 901 of 2022. A Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court, vide order dated 21.11.2022 set aside the order passed by the Learned Single Judge and restored the W.P. for fresh consideration with the following observation: “9. A perusal of the order passed by the learned single Judge shows that Rule 12 (1) of the Rules missed the attention of the learned single Judge. On this ground alone, this Court is inclined to send back the matter to the learned single Judge for consideration of the issue afresh.” 10. In this background, the W.P. came up for fresh consideration and for hearing. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the proposed amendments are only incidental to the reference ordered by the authorities and would not alter the nature of the reference and result in multiplicity of litigation. In this background, the W.P. came up for fresh consideration and for hearing. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the proposed amendments are only incidental to the reference ordered by the authorities and would not alter the nature of the reference and result in multiplicity of litigation. Learned counsel further submits that the Industrial Tribunal has every authority to allow the amendment by virtue of the power conferred under Rule-12(1)(e) and Rule 12(2) of the I.D. Rules at any stage of the proceedings, for the purpose of determining the real issues involved in the matter. Learned counsel would submit that the proposed amendments are only explaining elaborately about the earlier demands made. As such, the Court has every authority to allow such amendments by virtue of Rule-12 (1) (c) of the Rules. 11. Refuting the above submissions, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1 would submit that the proposed amendments are beyond the scope of the reference and the same would run contrary to Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 12 of the I.D. Rules. Learned counsel further argued that this Court cannot sit over the impugned order passed by the Industrial Tribunal as an appellate Court, but it must only see whether discretion exercised by the Industrial Tribunal is on correct lines or it is arbitrary. It is stated that the impugned Order would disclose that evidence of both parties has already completed and when the matter is coming for arguments, this application has been filed for impleading Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 which was allowed. Subsequently, the present application seeking amendments has been filed, which was rightly dismissed. Learned counsel vehemently contended that the proviso of the Rules cannot over-ride the Section of law 12. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that they have not sought for any new grounds in the proposed amendments. 13. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 finally submitted that the learned Tribunal rightly dismissed the petition on the very point that the proposed amendments are already covered in the Charter of Demands and are inter linked. It is also submitted that the result on one point as to the termination, is the crux of the matter and is enough to satisfy the demands made in the charter and that the proposed amendments are not necessary. It is also submitted that the result on one point as to the termination, is the crux of the matter and is enough to satisfy the demands made in the charter and that the proposed amendments are not necessary. It is also urged that the learned Tribunal judiciously exercised the discretion and the dispute referred in the year 2011 is still pending consideration before the Industrial Tribunal and at this stage, allowing the proposed amendments would be a futile exercise. 14. Before dwelling into the question in issue, it is relevant to have a look at the Charter of Demands dated 28.03.2011 which reads as under: 15. It is relevant to extract of the Reference that is sought to be adjudicated, which reads thus: “(1) Whether the Charter of Demand, dated 28.03.2011 raised by Madras Cement Ltd. Contract Labour Loaders Workers’ Union, Regd. No. G 2715 and also whether the Management of Madras Cements Ltd. Jayanthipuram, Jaggaiahpet Mandal, Krishna District is justified in their stand that they have terminated the contract awarded to (1) M/s. Raja & Co. and (2) M/s. Balaji & Co. which resulted in stoppage of employment of 194 contract labour from 20.04.2011 who are on strike demanding wage increase and other benefits is justified? (2) If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled?” 16. The Proposed Amendments sought vide of I.A. No. 281 of 2019 are extracted hereunder: 17. For ready reference, Rule-12 (1) and (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958, are extracted hereunder: Rule 12. Proceedings before the Labour Court or Tribunal: (1) Where the State Government refers any industrial dispute for adjudication to a Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal, within two weeks of the date of receipt of order of reference, the party representing workmen and the employer involved in the dispute shall file with Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal, as the case may be, a statement of the demands relating to the issues only as are included in the order of reference and shall also forward a copy of such statement to each one of the opposite parties involved in the said dispute. Provided that where the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal, as the case may be, considers it necessary, it may: (a) extend the time limit for filing of such statement. Provided that where the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal, as the case may be, considers it necessary, it may: (a) extend the time limit for filing of such statement. (b) reduce the time limit for filing of such statement to one week in emergent cases for reasons to be recorded in writing. (c) where both the parties agree, reduce the time limit for filing of such statement as per such agreement. (d) where both the parties agree, dispense with the requirement of filing of such statement altogether. (e) allow at any stage of the proceedings amendments to such statement to the extent as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real issue included in the order of reference. (2) Within two weeks of the receipt of the statement referred to in sub-rule (I), the opposite party shall file its rejoinder with the Labour Court or Tribunal, as the case may be, and simultaneously forward a copy thereof to the other party Provided that such rejoinder shall relate only to such of the issues as are included in the order of reference: Provided further that where the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal, as the case may be, considers it necessary, may: (a) extend the time limits for filing of such rejoinder. (b) reduce the time limit for filing of such rejoinder to one week in emergent cases for reasons to be recorded in writing. (c) where both the parties agree, reduce the time limit for filing of such rejoinder as per such agreement. (d) where both the parties agree, dispense with the requirement or filing of such rejoinder altogether. (e) allow at any stage of the proceedings, amendments to such rejoinder to the extent as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real issues included in the order of reference. 18. It is not in dispute that before the Industrial Tribunal, the matter is pending since 2011. The record would show that the evidence of both parties is completed and the matter is at the fag-end of submitting arguments. In fact, it is represented that when the matter is reserved for orders, the present application seeking amendment has been filed. 19. Learned counsel for the petitioner would strongly contend that as per Rule 12(1) (c) of the Rules, the proposed amendments are necessary for the purpose of determining the real issue included in the Order of reference. In fact, it is represented that when the matter is reserved for orders, the present application seeking amendment has been filed. 19. Learned counsel for the petitioner would strongly contend that as per Rule 12(1) (c) of the Rules, the proposed amendments are necessary for the purpose of determining the real issue included in the Order of reference. The language employed in Rule-12(1)(c) of the Rules would indicate that the amendments can be allowed at any stage of the proceedings to the claim statement, if they are necessary for the purpose of deciding the real issue involved in the Order of reference. 20. A fair look at the Charter of Demands made by the trade union on behalf of the workers included every demand now seeking by way of proposed amendments. Needless to say that by way of amendment, a new case cannot be introduced and it is absolutely not feasible to introduce a new case which is diametrically opposite to the original claim. At the same time, it shall be kept in mind that the proposed amendments are necessary to decide the real controversy are to be permitted. 21. This Court is in agreement with the argument of learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 on the point that the learned Judge after thorough discussion and comprehensive understanding of the issue has rightly came to the conclusion that the proposed amendments are nothing but repetition of the demands made in their Charter. As such, the learned Judge felt that it is not necessary to allow the said application. This Court cannot sit over the impugned order as an appellate Court. This Court has to examine whether the impugned Order is arbitrary or if the discretion exercised by the learned Judge is a judicious one or not. No prejudice has been caused to the Petitioner simply on the ground that the proposed amendments are not allowed. The demands made by the trade union under the proposed amendments are already covered in the Charter of demands, which was referred to the Court by the Government as per Section 10 of the I.D. Act. 22. Having regard to the facts of the case and in the light of the discussion on the issue involved referred to above, there is no substance in the case of the petitioner and there is nothing to interfere in the order dated 25.09.2019. 22. Having regard to the facts of the case and in the light of the discussion on the issue involved referred to above, there is no substance in the case of the petitioner and there is nothing to interfere in the order dated 25.09.2019. Thus, the writ petition lacks merit. 23. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 24. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.