IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1942 OF 2009 Welcomegroup Searock Hotel ..Petitioners Vs. Sohanlal Karotia ..Respondent Mr. Rajesh Mirchandani i/b M/s. Paras Kuhad & Associates for the Petitioners Mr. N. M. Ganguli for the Respondent CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. DATE: 25th November , 2009 P.C. : 1. Rule. 2. With the Consent of Counsel, the Petition is taken up for final hearing. Learned Counsel for the Respondent waives service. 3. During the pendency of a reference to adjudication under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the workman filed an Affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief. The workman was cross-examined and the evidence of the workman was closed. At that stage, the management claimed that after the evidence was closed on 11th August, 2009, it had located the personnel file of the First Respondent containing certain documents which would have a bearing on the past record of the workman. The Labour Court, according to the management, allowed the documents to be tendered, but rejected the prayer for recalling the workman for further cross-examination. 4. The management has filed these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. 5. The case of the Petitioners is that the hotel was closed in December 2006. Since December 2006, a bare minimum number of employees has been engaged and in the circumstances the file could not be located earlier. 6. Counsel appearing on behalf of the workman submitted on the other hand that the prayer for recalling the witness for further cross- examination is misconceived and that in any event, the documents on which reliance is placed, would have to be proved by the management in evidence. 7. Having heard the submissions of Counsel, in my view, there is no reason to disallow the management from adducing evidence in regard to the past conduct of the workman. The past conduct would have a material bearing on the reference particularly on the proportionality of the punishment. At the same time, the management would have to prove the documents contained in the personnel file which, according to it, reflect upon the past conduct of the workman. 8. The Petition shall accordingly disposed of with the following directions: (i) It would be open to the management, if it is advised to do so to lead evidence in support of its case including by adducing proof of documentary evidence, in regard to the past conduct of the workman; (ii) In the event, that the management chooses to do so and upon the conclusion of the evidence of the management, the workman would be at liberty to lead evidence in rebuttal, if he is so advised; (iii) All the rights and contentions of the parties, shall be adjudicated upon by the Industrial Court; (iv) The Petition shall stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms; (v) No order as to costs. (Dr. D.Y.Chandrachud, J)