SAMAJA CUTTACK Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 20.12.2011 passed by the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in I.D. Case No.9/99 under Annexure -5, wherein the learned Labour Court has rejected the petition dated 09.11.2011 filed by the petitioner - Management for sending the disputed signatures again to the Handwriting Expert on the ground that the said disputed signatures have already been examined by the Handwriting Expert.

(2.) PETITIONER 's case in a nut -shell is that the petitioner organization namely, "The Samaja" is a premier Odia daily newspaper which is being published since 1919. Opposite party No.2 -workman was initially working as a news representative/news contributor from 1995 on contract basis and providing news items and was being paid on column centimeter basis only after publication of the news in daily "The Samaja". After contributing the same for some time he had stopped the contribution of news to the petitioner -Organization. But later on he has raised the industrial dispute before the Labour Conciliation Machinery initially claiming for regularization of his service as a Sub -Editor and subsequently changed it as termination of his service, but due to his non -cooperation it was ended in failure and finally referred to the Government, who in turn sent the dispute with a schedule of reference. The reference was registered as I.D. Case No.9 of 1999 and pending before the learned Labour Court, Bhubaneswar for adjudication. In course of adjudication of the said industrial dispute when the matter was posted for hearing, opposite party No.2 -workman filed a petition for examination of the disputed signatures by a Handwriting Expert and the said petition was allowed vide order dated 14.02.2007 and direction was given to the workman to deposit cost of examination by the Hand Writing Expert and to give his specimen signature for comparison. But the workman did not comply with the order by remaining absent since then. Thereafter, the Labour Court passed award on 22.11.2007 answering the schedule of reference in favour of the petitioner/Management with a finding that the termination of opposite party No.2 from service of Sub - Editor w.e.f. 07.09.1997 is legal and justified. Challenging the said award passed in I.D. Case No.9 of 1999, opposite party -workman filed a writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.17313 of 2008 before this Court at a belated stage. This Court disposed of the said writ petition on 18.11.2009 allowing opposite party -workman to deposit the cost within a specified period and to complete the proceeding. The learned Labour Court on 14.02.2007 passed an order directing deposit of Rs.3,000/ - and filing of necessary requisites to send the signature to the State Handwriting Bureau for examination and report. On the next date, the Management filed a memo before the learned Court below mentioning the details of documents which are to be sent to the Handwriting Expert for comparison and examination. After receiving the said documents, the Handwriting Bureau has submitted the opinion and the relied documents before the learned Labour Court and also adduced evidence by marking these documents as Exhibits. On examination of the Handwriting Expert, the petitioner -Management came to know that the admitted and vital document like the statement of claim submitted by the opposite party -workman had not been sent for examination and comparison of signature for the reasons best known to the learned Court below. The Order dated 17.02.2007 specifically states about sending of the admitted signatures on the claim statement along with other specimen signatures for necessary comparison and examination to the Handwriting Expert, but on perusal of the forwarding letter of the learned Presiding Officer dated 25.09.2010 (Annexure -2), it is ascertained that no such statement of claim was sent for comparison and examination. Therefore, a petition was filed on 09.11.2011 by the present petitioner highlighting the non -transmission of the relevant documents as per own order of the Court. The learned Tribunal after considering the petition dated 09.11.2011 as well as the objection filed by opposite party -workman rejected the petition filed by petitioner - Management Hence, the present writ petition.

(3.) PER contra, Mr. B.S. Tripathy, learned counsel appearing for opposite party No.2 -workman submitted that neither in the order of this Court nor in the order of the learned Labour Court there is any direction to send statement of claim to the Handwriting Expert. It is further submitted that after order dated 02.03.2012 passed by the learned Labour Court in I.D. Case No.9 of 1999 under Annexure -7 wherein the Court below has allowed the petition filed on behalf of the Management for withdrawal of the petition filed on 18.01.2012 regarding recall of Handwriting Expert/CW -1 for further examination and the workman filed a petition to allow him to cross -examine MW -1 in terms of order of this Court dated 18.11.2009, the present petition has become infructuous.