WP/8759/2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8759 OF 2010 Vasudev Tanaji Narvekar ... Petitioner V/s. Larsen & Toubro Ltd., Mumbai & Anr. ... Respondents Mr. Abhay Dilip Ostwal for the Petitioner. Mr. K.M. Naik i/b. Mr. S.P. Salkar for the Respondents. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE : 1 ST FEBRUARY, 2011. P.C. : 1. This Writ Petition has been filed against the order dated 7th September, 2010, passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai in Complaint (ULP) No.919 of 2003, disallowing the application filed by the petitioner for a witness summons to be issued to Shri Anil M. Naik, the Chairman and Managing Director of the respondent-Company. 2. A complaint, being Complaint (ULP) No.919 of 2003, has been filed by the petitioner under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, (for short “the MRTU & PULP Act”). In that complaint, the petitioner has alleged that certain deductions had been made from the wages payable to him, contrary to the settlement signed with the Union on 4th September, 2003. He also contends that he was not WP/8759/2010 2 informed that such deductions would be made and, therefore, the respondents have indulged in an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. He has also pleaded that a part of the deductions made from the workers’ salary were paid towards levy to the Union, without any authorization by the workmen. 3. It appears that after the written statement was filed by the respondents, evidence was led by the petitioner in support of his complaint. The evidence of the respondents’ witness is also closed. Thereafter, the petitioner has approached the Industrial Court contending that the Chairman and Managing Director should be examined as a witness since the witness who had been examined by the respondent-Company has stated that he was not aware of the facts and that he was not aware whether the respondent-Company had raised loans against the deductions made from the salary payable to the workers. 4. The application was opposed by the respondent-Company. The Industrial Court has dismissed the application on the ground that there was no need to call the Chairman and Managing Director of the respondent-Company as a witness of the petitioner. It was of the opinion that while deciding the complaint, the Court can ascertain whether the failure to examine this witness by the Company was deliberate. It has also held that the Court would determine the resultant consequences. 5. The main contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner is that this WP/8759/2010 3 witness is required to be summoned as he is the only person who would be aware as to whether a loan had been obtained against the deductions made from the salary of the workmen. He further submits that it is a common rule that truth must prevail before the Court and, therefore, witness summons can be issued at any point of time by the Court. He then submits that it was necessary to summon the Chairman and Managing Director of the respondent-Company only because it was he who was the architect of the scheme “L & T Employees Welfare Foundation Scheme”. He points out that the witness who was examined before the Industrial Court had shirked his responsibility of answering the questions asked in the cross- examination by stating that he was unaware of the facts. He has also relied on the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Orient Engineering & Commercial Co. Ltd. & Anr., reported in (1978) 1 SCC 10, in which the Supreme Court has observed that although it is not necessary that every person named in the list of the witnesses should automatically be summoned, if grounds are made out for summoning a witness, he must be called provided the demand is not belated, vexatious or frivolous. 6. In the present case, the complaint has been filed alleging that an unfair labour practice has been committed by the respondent-Company by not paying the petitioner monthly wages as required under the Settlement between the workmen and the employer. The petitioner has mentioned the amount which has been deducted from his salary and has further pleaded that these deductions have been made towards donations which are not at all voluntarily made. WP/8759/2010 4 7. In my opinion, in the light of the pleadings in the complaint, there is no need for the petitioner to summon the witness. The only requirement for the petitioner is to prove that he was entitled to a salary of a certain amount under the Settlement prevailing that deductions have been made from his salary; that those deductions have been made contrary to the provisions of the Settlement and/or any law in force. 8. The petitioner, in my opinion, is not concerned in this complaint directly as to whether the respondent-Company had raised a loan against the deductions made from the workmen’s salary. The question involved in the complaint is only whether an unfair labour practice has been committed by the respondent- Company by non-implementation of the Settlement. In my opinion, therefore, the application for witness summons has rightly been dismissed by the Industrial Court. Apart from this it would be open for the Industrial Court to examine the consequences of the respondent-Company failing to examine its Chairman and Managing Director. 9. The Writ Petition is rejected.