AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.P. Sondurbaldota, J.—Rule, Rule made returnable forthwith. Service of Rule is waived. By consent the petition is taken up for final hearing.
The petitioner filed a complaint before the Labour Court, Thane being Complaint (ULP) No. 154 of 1999 alleging unfair labour practice u/s 28 R/W Items 1(a), (b), (d) and (f) of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 against the respondent. At paragraph No. 1 of the complaint it is stated that the complainant is making the complaint in the capacity of individual employee and also on behalf of the workmen whose names are appearing in Annexure-A to the complaint. Annexure-A enumerates nine workmen on whose behalf the complaint was sought to be filed.
The respondents in their written statement raised no dispute or question whatsoever as regards filing of the complaint by the petitioner on behalf of other workmen.'' It is the case of the petitioner that at the time of filing of the complaint the persons named in Annexure-A had given a letter of authority in his name which letter was kept in the custody of Mr. R.D. Sawant, the union leader. When the complaint was taken up for hearing, the complainant did not produce the letter of authority in his evidence. However, when asked in his cross-examination, he categorically stated that said letter of authority was issued by other workmen to him. Other workmen have also been examined in the complaint. They also reiterated that the letter of authority was signed by them in favour of the petitioner. Later when the letter was sought to be produced through witness Mr. R D. Sawant, the respondents raised an objection on the ground that the document was not produced at the time of filing of the complaint and that it was not produced by the complainant in his evidence. The learned Labour Judge vide order dated 9th March, 2006 upheld the objection and did not permit the petitioner to produce the document. The petitioner then preferred revision application being Revision Application (ULP) No. 45 of 2006 before the Industrial Court, at Thane. The revision application came to be dismissed by order dated 22nd January, 2007 holding that the Labour Court had properly considered the question and rejected the application.
Mr. Gavkar appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submits that the petitioner ought to have produced the document in the first instance i.e. along with complaint itself. According to him, production of the document subsequently is nothing but an attempt of filling up the lacuna by the petitioner, Mr. Nerlekar, learned Counsel for the petitioner draws attention of the Court to Rule 68 of the Labour Courts (Practice and Procedure) Rules, 1975 and submits that the parties are required, as far as possible, to produce documents along with the complaint initiating the proceedings. They may produce additional documents subsequently within such time as extended by the Court. Therefore, there is no bar as such for production of a document for the first time during recording of evidence.
Mr. Gavkar then questions the custody of the document. He submits that if such document was executed by other workmen, there was no reason for the same to be in custody of a third person. In my opinion, the petitioner has sufficiently explained the custody of the document. Further, it is always open for the respondents to make submissions on the evidentiary value of the document. Therefore, merely because there is delay on the part of petitioner in producing the document before the Court, the same cannot be stalled.
In the circumstances, the petition is allowed. The order dated 9th March, 2006 passed by IInd Labour Court, Thane and order dated 22nd January, 2007 passed by Industrial Court, Thane are hereby quashed and set aside. The Labour Court is directed to take on record the letter of authority issued by the petitioner and proceed with the complaint.