WORKMAN REP Vs. VIII INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated May 7, 1999 passed by the learned single Judge in Matter No. 2880 of 1993 dismissing the writ petition arising out of the Award dated June 30, 1993 passed by the learned 8th Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal. Three issues were REFERRED TO the Tribunal for being adjudicated upon, namely, (i) Whether order dated November 28, 1985 transferring Shri B.N. Sharma from Fntally to Burrabazar unit is justified? To what relief, if any, is he entitled? (ii) Whether lock-out of the establishment at 25, Dr. Suresh Sarkar Road, Calcutta with effect from March 11, 1986 and lock-out from April 8, 1986 are justified? To what relief if any, are the workmen entitled? and (iii) Whether the closure of the establishment at 25 Dr. Suresh Sarkar Road, Calcutta and 134/4, M.G. Road, Calcutta-7 is real? To what relief, if any, are the workmen entitled? All these issues were answered in favour of the employer. This was challenged before the learned single Judge wherein the said Award was affirmed. Order 41, Rule 11, CPC: Admissibility of documents: Its effects:

(2.) Mr. Raja Basu Chowdhury, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, points out that the closure was not real. In order to support his contention, an application under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the appellant. This was allowed by the Division Bench on December 8, 2004. Copies of these documents, which were sought to be adduced by way of additional evidence, are annexed with the application. We rely upon these documents as copies of originals Mr. Ghosh also does not dispute the same. Relying on these documents, Mr. Basu Chowdhury contended that the closure was a camouflage and that the employer was continuing its business, which is apparent from these very documents. Mr. Ghosh, on the other hand, contends that these documents were produced only in 2001. There was no attempt to produce any document in between the date of reference namely, January 30, 1988 till the date of the: Award dated June 30, 1993. In our view, no attempt was made to produce these documents before the learned single Judge, who decided the writ petition on May 7, 1999. These documents have been produced only in the year 2004 though the appeal was preferred in 1999. According to Mr. Ghosh, these subsequent documents cannot be relied upon for the purpose of deciding an issue related to the affairs that existed in 1986. He relies on the decision in Nicks (India) Tools v. Ram Surat and another AIR 2004 SC 4348 : 2004-III-LLJ-764.

(3.) In Nicks (India) Tools (supra), the Apex Court had held that for the first time documents, produced before the Writ Court by way of additional evidence would not be considered by the High Court since those were brought in a manner not known to law. But we do not think that this principle could be applied in the present case where the documents have been brought in the manner recognised in law, namely, Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which permitted adducing of additional evidence. Therefore, we are not inclined to throw out those documents on the ground of its inadmissibility. On the other hand, we would like to consider those documents on its merits and examine as to whether the evidence laid out of those documents could be applied in the present case in order to hold that the closure was not real but a camouflage.