Delhi High Court
Amira Foods (I) Ltd. vs Ms. Nivedita Chanda D/O Shri ... on 13 November, 2007
Author: J Malik
Bench: J Malik
JUDGMENT
J.M. Malik, J.
1. The only question which revolves around the present controversy is whether the respondent/workman should be granted an opportunity to cross-examine the petitioner's witnesses at the stage of final arguments. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he had already advanced the final arguments before the labour court. The attention of the Court was drawn towards the order passed by the labour court on 28th September, 2007, which goes to show that the labour court had heard final arguments on behalf of the Management but the arguments on behalf of the Workman was yet to be heard.
2. On 12th October, 2007, the labour court heard the arguments on behalf of both the parties on the application moved by the workman, wherein she prayed that she be permitted to cross-examine MW-1 and MW-2. The labour court after considering the facts concluded that no cross examination of MW-1 and MW-2 was done by the AR of the workman and only some suggestions were put to the witnesses. The labour court was of the opinion that the workman cannot be made to suffer on account of the negligence of the AR of the workman and consequently, it allowed the application moved by the workman. Aggrieved by that order, the present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner.
3. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner. He has drawn my attention towards the following extracts of para No. 7 of the authority reported in Bhagwan Dass Chopra v. United Bank of India and Ors. :
...Generally speaking an assignee cannot set up a case inconsistent with the one put forward by his assignor and it only in exceptional cases an assignee could be permitted to raise any new plea and that too only for avoiding multiplicity of the proceedings. In the instant case there was no such exceptional circumstance which entitled the United Bank of India to take up a plea different from the pleas which had already been taken up by the Narang Bank of India Ltd. and there was also no need to permit it to reopen the proceedings which had gone on till then. The High Court has not adverted to any such exceptional circumstance. The learned single Judge had not set out any justifiable reason for observing that the principles of natural justice demanded that all those witnesses whose evidence had been recorded earlier could be recalled at the instance of the United Bank of India and opportunity afforded to the United Bank of India to cross-examine them....
4. I have perused the above-said authority. The facts of the instant case do not dovetail with the facts of the above-said authority. The facts of the above-said authority can be differentiated on the ground that an attempt was made to set up an incongruous case. The new party had added a new plea. A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly goes to show that the workman was not given an effective opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of the opposite party. It must be borne in mind that cross-examination of witnesses is the lifeblood of our legal system. It is the only way a Judge can decide whom to trust. An answer during the cross-examination may wreck one's case. In the impugned order the labour court had noted that the workman should not suffer on account of the negligence of her authorised representative. Para 3 of the application moved by the respondent reads:
3. That the ARW was suppose to look after the case of the applicant with full care and professional diligence, but the ARW did not took any care in handling the matter rather he deliberately mishandle the case, which is evident from the fact that only two suggestion were given by him to the management witness.
5. Again there is no inkling in the order dated 12.10.2007 that the petitioner had raised any protest. It chose not to file any reply. No objection, whatsoever, was ever raised. Under these circumstances, I find no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the labour court. The writ petition is without merit and the same is, therefore, dismissed at the admission stage. Application also stands dismissed.
6. A copy of this order be sent to the labour court forthwith.
