1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5618/2003 Arjun Dev Vs. The Judge Labour Court & Anr. Date of Order :: 27.8.2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. R.S. Saluja, for the petitioner. Mr. P.K. Lohra, for the respondents. ... To challenge the award dated 19.8.2002 passed by the labour court, Sriganganagar this petition for writ is preferred. In brief facts of the case are that the appropriate government under a notification dated 6.11.1999 referred an industrial dispute for its adjudication to the appropriate government in the terms that, “whether the applicant Arjun Dev S/o Keshu Ram, Ex Conductor, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Hanumangarh resident of Dhannasar, Tehsil – Rawatsar, District- Hanumangarh was rightly terminated from service by the employer Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Hanumangarh on 12.10.1984 by an oral order. If not, then for what relief the workman is entitled”. The labour court at the oral request of the employer granted a permission as per the provisions of Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act to adduce the evidence to prove the allegation of misconduct against the workman. The employer accordingly submitted 2 a statement of Sh. Liyakat Ali in the form of an affidavit and also documents Exhibit-M/1 to M/3. The representative of the workman was allowed to cross-examine Sh. Liyakat Ali. After considering the entire evidence available on record the labour court found the petitioner- workman guilty for a misconduct, thus, upheld the order dated 12.10.1984 terminating the petitioner from service. Before this Court the stand of the employee is that no permission could have been granted by the labour court to the employer to adduce the evidence at a subsequent stage if no claim in this regard was made in written statement. I do not find any substance in the argument advanced. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Laxmi Devamma reported in 2001 (5) SCC 433 while dealing with the same question held as follows:- “38. In various decisions rendered by this Court, it has been held that such a request can be made to the Labour Court/Tribunal before the proceedings are closed. There is no compelling reason to limit the exercise of discretion by the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal to examine such a prayer on its own merit and decline it if not considered to be bone fide and made to delay the proceedings and to wreck the morale of the workman and compel him surrender, to use the language of Shambhu Nath Goyal case. Ordinarily such a request when made immediately after the decision of the preliminary issue deserves to be allowed as held in Shankar Chakravarti case prior to its elaboration by Justice Desai in Shambhu Nath Goyal case. If such a request is made soon after the enquiry is held to be invalid and the Labour Court holds it to be bona fide and further holds that no prejudice would be caused to 3 the workman, there is no reason still to shut the employer when it has been rightly held, time and again, that the employer has a right to adduce evidence before the Labour Court in case of no enquiry or invalid enquiry. In such proceedings, pleadings do not deserve to be strictly construed. 39. For the foregoing reasons, it is not possible to hold that if the employer does not express his desire to lead additional evidence in reply to the statement of claim in proceedings under Section 10 or when an application is filed for approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, the employer cannot be allowed to exercise option at a later stage of the proceedings by making an application for the purpose. The employer's request, when made before close of proceedings, deserves to be examined by the Labour Court/Tribunal on its own merits and it goes without saying that the Labour Court/Tribunal will exercise discretion on well-settled judicial principles and would examine the bona fides of the employer in making such an application. In the instant matter too, the labour court exercised discretion vested with it and allowed the employer to adduce the evidence, as such, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court as above, no wrong was committed by the labour court. No other ground is advanced, hence, the award impugned does not suffer from any error that may warrant interference of this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition therefore is dismissed. (GOVIND MATHUR), J. Jgoyal '