Hem Chand Verma vs Presiding Officer Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, U.T. Chandigarh

S.S. Sudhalkar, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the workman, whose application for production of record was partly disallowed by the Industrial Tribunal. A copy of the application is Annexure P/1 and the prayer made in the application is as under:-

"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this application may kindly be allowed and additional affidavit on behalf of the workman along with the material issue note dated 24.9.1994 may kindly be taken on record and the record regarding the employment of Sh. Santosh Sharma in Continental Device India Ltd. be summoned along with the original material issue note dated 24.9.1994 in the interest of justice-"

Counsel for the petitioner has argued that out of the prayers made in the said application, the prayer regarding production of record regarding the employment of Sh. Santosh Sharma in Continental Device India Limited has not been granted.

Counsel for the petitioner argued that Sh. Santosh Sharma was examined as a management witness in the case and he has deposed that he was working in the respondent company for the last 12 years as Assistant Manager. This deposition, as per the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner, was recorded on 4.3.1993 and if 12 years preceding the said date are counted, if the said statement is correct, then he would be in the employment of respondent company since 1981. It is also stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent company, which in M/s Daltron Ltd. was earlier known as M/s Delta Hamlin Ltd. Learned counsel argued that he wants the record to falsify the say of Sh. Santosh Sharma that he was working in the respondent Company. The evidence of the petitioner before the Labour Court is admittedly oven The management has also examined three witnesses and they have been cross-examined. On the day, when the application was filed, as per the day of the learned counsel for the petitioner, examination-in-chief of the management witness was recorded but his cross-examination had not yet started.

Counsel for the respondent-company argued that the petitioner cannot contradict the statement of a witness. Sh. Santosh Sharma, made in the domestic enquiry by adducing evidence, which he is now calling.

Learned counsel for the respondent states that Sh. Santosh Sharma was appointed in Continental Device India ltd. and was on deputation with respondent-company and that he was appointed on 5.7.1980 in the Continental Device India Ltd. Learned counsel for the respondent does not have the exact date of deputation of Shri Santosh Sharma with the respondent-company.

The question, therefore, is whether the prayer of the petitioner should be allowed or not ?

The petitioner is wanting to falsify the statement of the witness which he has made before the Enquiry officer, by way of adducing additional evidence, which according to the learned counsel for the respondent, cannot be done now. He says that the Industrial Tribunal cannot interfere with the finding of the Enquiry officer. However, in the case of Ajit Singh Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Union Territory, Chandigarh, It has been held by Division Bench of this Court that the powers which vested with the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal etc. u/s 11-A are wide and pervasive and it is open to such Court to go into the various issues concerning the legality of the enquiry held by the employer and also into the merits of the allegation levelled against the employee.

Therefore, the Industrial Tribunal has the jurisdiction to see whether the deposition given by Sh. Santosh Sharma was correct or not.

In view of the above reasons, this writ petition deserves to be allowed. It is hereby allowed and respondent No. 2/company is directed to produce before the Industrial Tribunal, the appointment letter of Sh. Santosh Sharma, the order by which he was deputed to it from M/s Continental Device India Ltd. and also the resolution of Board of Directors (if any) of the respondent company to the said effect. The petitioner shall be permitted to examine the witness, who is employee of the respondent-company for the said purpose. The petitioner shall not delay the matter and the Industrial Tribunal shall dispose it of expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order from this Court.

Petition allowed.