M/s. Miscro Grain Steels vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court-cum-Industrial

Mehtab S. Gill, J.—In this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned award dated 23.11.1998, copy Annexure P5.

It has been averred by the petitioner that respondent No. 2 was appointed as a Turner on 1.6.1992 and his services were terminated with effect from 16.4.1993. The respondent No. 2 served a demand notice on the petitioner- management. Written statement was filed wherein it was mentioned the respondent No. 2 was not the employee of the management. Conciliation proceedings failed and the matter was referred to the Labour Court. The petitioner-management also filed reply in the Labour Court and raised preliminary objection that as relationship of master and servant did not exist between the petitioner and respondent No. 2, there was no question of termination of services of respondent No. 2. The Labour Court, after considering all the aspects of the case passed the impugned award whereby respondent No. 2 was reinstated with continuity of service and back wages.

Notice of motion was issued and respondent No. 2 filed detailed written statement.

We have Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the paper book carefully.

The only dispute between the Parties is whether respondent-workman worked in M/s. Micro Grain Steels or M/s. M.G. Electrical. Both these units are existing on the same plot i.e. plot No. 97, Sector 24, Faridabad. The appointment letter Exhibit W-1 shows that the workman was appointed in M/s. Micro Grain Steels. The termination letter Exhibit W-2 was also written by the management witness MW1 Mohan Gupta. The learned Counsel for the petitionerhas very vehemently argued that the documents produced by the respondent-workman, i.e. appointment letter and joining report are false, fictitious and fabricated documents. He has drawn our attention to Annexure P6 wherein it has been stated that Shri Mohan Gupta, Manager of the petitioner Company was going abroad and that the case may be disposed of at an early date. Further in para 2, it has been prayed that the appointment letter and the joining report be got examined from a Handwriting Expert. Para 2 is reproduced hereunder :-

"2. That the appointment of petitioner Amar Chand Sharma has been forged. It is prayed that our Company Manager''s signatures may be got attested by Handwriting Expert. The petitioner has also denied his signatures on his joining report in the Company. His signatures on the joining report will have to be got testified from the same Handwriting Expert."

This application was given 17.1.1998. We do not find any where in the award, whether this application was taken into consideration by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court or not.

In the light of above discussion, we allow this writ petition. The award passed by the Labour Court is set aside. The case is remanded to the Labour Court for fresh decision on the matter as the learned Counsel for the petitioner wants to get some documents examined from a Handwriting Expert, by way of additional evidence. The Labour Court shall give an opportunity to the petitioner to have the documents examined from a Handwriting Expert and allow it to lead evidence, qua these documents only. It is further made clear that the private respondent shall also be given a chance to rebut the evidence. The Labour Court is directed to dispose of the case within a period of six months from today. Parties to appear before the Labour Court on 15.11.2000.

Petition allowed