Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Groz Beckert Asia Private Limited vs Vikas Ani And Another on 4 September, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115464
CWP-11548-2024 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
124 CWP-11548-2024
Date of decision: 04.09.2024
M/S GROZ BECKERT ASIA PRIVATE LIMITED ....PETITIONER
Vs.
VIKAS ANI AND ANOTHER ...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present: Mr. A.S. Narang, Advocate,
Mr. K.S. Sandhu, Advocate,
Ms. Manpreet Kaur, Advocate and
Ms. Ishita Kaur, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. K.L. Arora, Advocate
for respondent No.1.
****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J (ORAL)
1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 09.02.2024 (Annexure
P-13) whereby Labour Court has rejected application of the petitioner-Management
to re-examine its witness.
2. The petitioner moved an application under Section 33(2)(b) of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking approval of termination of respondent No.1-
workman. The Management led its evidence and during the course of evidence, it
examined Ajay Kumar Patyal as MW-2. He was examined on 03.07.2023
(Annexure P-7) and his cross-examination took place on 27.09.2023 (Annexure P-
9). On the said date, he was partially cross examined, thus, the matter was
adjourned to 20.10.2023 and on the said date, the Presiding Officer was on leave
and the matter was adjourned to 20.11.2023. On 20.11.2023, the cross-examination
of MW-2 was completed. In his cross examination on 27.09.2023, he had deposed
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115464
that he has to check his record, if Vikas Ani was a protected workman or not. The
said witness did not produce record on 20.11.2023 and cross-examination was
concluded. The Management on 11.12.2023 moved an application before Labour
Court seeking re-examination of its witness i.e. MW-2.
3. The Labour Court by impugned order dated 09.02.2024 has rejected
application of the Management on the ground that act of Management amounts to
filling the lacunae in Evidence and Management cannot be permitted to re-examine
its witness especially when cross examination took place on two different dates and
the witness did not produce any document as disclosed in the cross-examination
dated 27.09.2023. The findings recorded by Labour Court are produced as below:-
"It is argued by Learned Representative for the applicant-
management that the management is seeking to re-examine MW2 on
the ground that MW2 had checked the record if Vikas Ani is a
'protected workman' or not. At the end of his cross-examination on
20.11.2023, MW2 wanted to explain and make a statement to clarify
the above-mentioned fact but he was not permitted to do that. To my
opinion, the above said argument of Learned Representative for the
applicant-management carries not force because the perusal of the
cross-examination of MW2 recorded on 20.11.2023 would show that
no such request as alleged was made by MW2 for making any
clarification with regard to the fact that if Vikas Ani is a 'protected
workman' or not. Since, no such request was made, thus there is no
order of the Court whereby the request of MW2 was declined. During
cross-examination of MW2, wherever required he made voluntarily
statements which were duly recorded. Testimony of MW2 was recorded
in the presence of Learned Representatives for both the parties. At the
end of cross-examination MW2, on 20.11.2023, Learned
Representative for the applicant-management did not make any
request seeking to re-examine the witness on any point. Moreover,
MW2 in his cross- examination partly recorded on 27.09.2023 has
admitted the suggestion put by the respondent-workman as correct
that being General Secretary of G.B.A. workers' union, Vikas Ani was
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115464
protected workman. MWI immediately changed his stance and again
said that he has to check from the check if Vikas Ani was a protected
workman or not. Re-examination gives an opportunity to reconcile the
discrepancies between the statements in examination-in-chief and
cross-examination and also provides an opportunity to the parties to
examine the statements inadvertently made at the stage of cross-
examination remove confusions or ambiguities in the deposition on the
evidence by cross-examination. Re-examination cannot be used to give
chance to a witness to undo statement made in cross-examination and
to fill lacunae in evidence. The applicant-management did not offer
any explanation as to why Learned Representative for the applicant-
management did not exercise his right of re-examination of the witness
immediately after conclusion of his cross- examination. Now at this
stage granting permission to re-examine MW2 would amount to
providing of an opportunity to the applicant-management to fill up the
lacunae of its case, which will certainly cause serious prejudice to the
interest of respondent-workman. The law laid down in the judgments
referred by Learned Representative for the applicant-management
reported in 2022(3) RCR (Civil) 842 P&H tilted as Surlekha Rani
@Sulekha Rani Versus Pardeep Kumar and 2004(8) SLR 781 Cal.
titled as Statesman Ltd. & Another Versus The First Industrial
Tribunal & Others, is well recognised by this Court but the ratio of
the rulings is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
4. Mr. A.S. Narang, Advocate submits that petitioner may be put to costs,
however, it may not be denied opportunity to re-examine its witness because matter
is at Management Evidence stage and workman would get full opportunity to again
cross examine the witness as well as examine documentary evidence led by the
Management.
5. Per contra, Mr. K.L. Arora, Advocate submits that Labour Court has
recorded categoric and reasoned findings. The petitioner is trying to fill-up lacunae
in its evidence which would prejudice rights of the workman.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115464
6. I have heard counsel for the parties and with their able assistance
perused the record.
7. From the perusal of record, it comes out that Labour Court has passed
detailed and reasoned order while rejecting application of Management seeking re-
examination of its witness. The Court has noticed demeanor of aforesaid witness as
well as representative of Management.
8. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, the Labour Court
has come to a conclusion that permission to re-examine would amount to an
opportunity to fill up lacunae in evidence of the Management. The findings
recorded by Labour Court seems to be just and fair. There is no reason to invoke
writ jurisdiction especially when matter is pending at evidence stage before the
Labour Court and petitioner has opportunity to lead other evidence(s) in support of
its contentions.
9. Dismissed.
04.09.2024 [JAGMOHAN BANSAL]
manoj JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
