M/S. Brahmani River Pellets Ltd vs Shashikant Mohanta And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 881 Ori

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                          W.P.(C) No. 26788 of 2022
                           (Through hybrid mode)


M/s. Brahmani River Pellets Ltd.,                  ....                 Petitioner
BBSR

                                      -versus-
Shashikant Mohanta and another                     ....        Opposite Parties

Advocates appeared in the case:

         For petitioner           -       Mr. Sambit Rath, Advocate

         For Opp. Parties         -       None

              CORAM:
                           JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
                           JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Date of hearing and judgment: 25.01.2023
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARINDAM SINHA, J.

1. Mr. Rath, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and

submits, requisites were duly put in for service upon opposite party

no.1 (workman) pursuant to order dated 16th November, 2022. Noting

is that postal article was returned with endorsement 'left'. He submits

further, since direction was for the case before the labour Court to

remain stayed till next date and for listing on 7th December, 2022, said

Court is proceeding with the case and has fixed next date for hearing

// 2 //

on 3rd February, 2023. He submits still further, the order was

communicated to the Court below as well as learned advocate for the

workman engaged in that Court.

2. We have examined the postal article. The endorsement simply

says 'left'. We presume there was no intimation as otherwise the

postal authority would have taken steps to forward the article. In the

circumstances, we find there was good service.

3. Mr. Rath had submitted by, inter alia, impugned order dated

28th June, 2022, the labour Court, purportedly relying on rule 16 in

Odisha Industrial Disputes Rules, 1959, marked a salary slip produced

by the workman after conclusion of evidence, as Ext.3. He submitted,

the exhibit slip cannot be relied upon as evidence. On query from

Court he draw attention to the objection filed, from which paragraph-6

is extracted and reproduced below.

"6.That the 1st Party Management humbly submits that the document filed by the 2nd party workman contains no seal and/or signature and is a computer generated document and the petition also does not disclosed from which source he obtained or downloaded the document and in absence of any specific pleading the present application is not maintainable in the eye of law, hence

// 3 //

the petition filed by the 2nd party workman is liable to be dismissed with cost."

4. On further query from Court he submitted, his client made

application (annexure-7), on which order dated 5th September, 2022,

also under challenge, was made. A passage from said order is

extracted and reproduced below.

"Perused the Order, dt.28.06.2022 passed by this Court. After analyzing the materials before it and relying upon Rule 16 of the Orissa Industrial Dispute Rules, 1959, this Court has passed the Order sought to be reviewed/modified. Admittedly, this is a case Registered U/s.2A(2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 filed by the 2nd party/workman. As stated earlier, the document was accepted and marked Exhibit at the stage of argument, which is very much forth coming from Rule 16 of the O.I.D.R., 1959. On a bare perusal of the said document, it does not appear to be a fabricated document. As per the settled principle of law, a party should produce all the documentary evidence in his possession prior to the hearing, so that, the chance of creation of any documentary evidence during trial can be ruled out. However, as stated earlier, the document marked Ext.3, does not appear to be a fabricated document to the naked eye. There is no necessity of its formal proof and the same can be waived out.

// 4 //

In the above facts and circumstances of this case, this Court does not find any reason to modify/review its order passed on dt.28.06.2022. Accordingly, the petition filed by the 1st party/Management on dt.27.7.2022 is rejected being devoid of merit.

Put up on dt.28.09.2022 for argument. Parties to get ready accordingly."

(emphasis supplied)

He submitted, without opportunity to cross-examine on the document,

at argument stage, the labour Court formed opinion on genuineness of

it.

5. Rule 16 empowers, inter alia, acceptance of evidence at any

stage of the proceeding. Clause (c) under rule 25 provides for

reception of evidence taken on affidavit by the labour Court having

same powers as vested in a civil Court under Code of Civil Procedure,

1908. Simply production of a document and pronouncing it as

evidence, does not make it a piece of evidence. The Civil Procedure

Code, by rule 4 in order XVIII provides for recording of evidence.

Examination-in-chief is to be by affidavit, provided that where

documents are filed and parties rely upon them, the proof and

admissibility of such documents shall be subject to orders of the Court.

Here, where petitioner had objected to the documents, impugned order

// 5 //

pronouncing upon its admissibility, without giving opportunity of

cross-examination, is illegal.

6. Impugned order is set aside and quashed. The Court below is

directed to afford opportunity for petitioner to cross-examine the

witness, who had tendered the document. This is required to be done

first, on notice to parties of the date fixed and thereupon said Court

will proceed with adjudicating on the reference, in accordance with

law.

7. The writ petition is allowed and disposed of.

(Arindam Sinha) Judge

(S.K. Mishra) Judge Sks