BANNETT COLEMAN AND COMPANY LIMITED Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the management is directed against the order dated 8-10-1987 passed by the Labour Court whereby the application of the management requesting for adducing additional evidence if domestic inquiry is found to be vitiated, was dismissed. The application was dismissed on the ground that either the plea for additional evidence should have been taken in the written statement or an explanation for delay should have been furnished in the application itself and in the absence of the same, no permission could be granted.

(2.) The industrial dispute having arisen between the respondent- workman and the petitioner-management, the same was referred to the Labour Court by Delhi Administration on 13-6-1983. The statement of claim was filed by the workman on 26-7-1983. The management filed us written statement on 8-9-1983. Rejoinder was filed on 23-9-1983. Thereafter the documents were filed and the issue in terms of the reference was framed on 3-11-1983 and the matter was adjourned to 20-1-1984 for evidence. However, on that date the management did not produce any evidence and the case was adjourned for evidence of the management to 18-4-1984. On that date i.e. on 18-4-1984 the management moved the application request- ting for adducing additional evidence, if domestic inquiry is set aside. The application, however, remained pending and the Labour Court took up the question of validity and the domestic inquiry as a preliminary issue.

(3.) By order dated 2-9-1986, the Labour Court set aside the inquiry on technical grounds, inter alia, by observing that the inquiry officer was biased. Thereafter the concerned workman filed his reply to the application of the management for adducing additional evidence and the management filed its rejoinder. The Labour Court heard the arguments and referred to the various decisions on the subject and came to the conclusion that it was not open to the management to adduce additional evidence when no such plea has been taken in the written statement and no explanation for the delay in filing the application was furnished in the application itself. Consequently, the application was dismissed. The Labour Court has mainly relied on the observations of their lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Shambhu Nath Goel v. Bank of Baroda,AIR 1984 Supreme Court 289.