vs s IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.4861 OF 2008 PETITION NO.4861 OF 2008 PETITION NO.4861 OF 2008 The Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank Ltd. ... Petitioner V/s. Hari Vithoba Patil & Ors. ... Respondents Ms.R.K. Joshi for Petitioner Mr.S.D. Thokade for Respondent No.1 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J MHATRE, J MHATRE, J. DATED: August 14, 2008 August 14, 2008 August 14, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The petition challenges the order of the Industrial Court and the Labour Court disallowing the petitioner bank’s application for leading evidence of the handwriting expert. The respondent workman has been terminated from service after holding an enquiry against him. The enquiry has been found to be improper and in violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the bank led evidence before the Court to justify its action of terminating the service. The evidence led at the enquiry included that of officers of the bank as well of a hand-writing expert. However, before the Court, the bank examined one of its officers and closed its evidence. Thereafter, the respondent workman stepped into the witness box and has filed his affidavit in lieu of examination in chief. He was being : 2 : cross-examined by the petitioner’s advocate. An adjournment was sought on 4.8.2006 by the advocate for the bank as instructions were necessary from the bank for cross-examining the workman further. Again on 21.9.2006, an adjournment was sought after cross-examining the workman for some time as the advocate for the bank wanted to produce certain documents. The matter was adjourned yet again and on 4.10.2006, the cross-examination was completed. The workman denied having signed Exhibit C9. This led to the advocate for the bank seeking a witness summons for the handwriting expert in order to lead his evidence. 2. This application was opposed by the workman and the Labour Court has disallowed the application. The order of the Labour Court has been confirmed by the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court has concluded that by seeking to examine the hand-writing expert, the bank was filling in the lacunae in its evidence. 3. Ms.Joshi, appearing for the bank, submits that it was only because the workman denied his signature on exhibit C9 that it became necessary to examine the handwriting expert. She submits that had the workman admitted his signature on exhibit C9, there would have been no necessity to examine the handwriting expert. She further submits that it was immediately after the : 3 : evidence of the workman was closed that the application has been made by the bank for examining the handwriting expert and, therefore no prejudice would be caused to the workman if the application is allowed. The bank should be put to some terms and be allowed to examine the handwriting expert, urges the learned advocate. She points out that the charge against the workman is serious i.e. of having committed a fraud. The learned advocate relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association v/s. Union of India, AIR 2005 SC 3353 AIR 2005 SC 3353 AIR 2005 SC 3353 to submit that truth must come forth before the Court. She relies on paragraph 14 of that judgment wherein the Court has discussed the stage at which the additional evidence should be permitted. Ms.Joshi relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v/s Lakshmidevamma, 2001 AIR SCW 1981 wherein Justice Shivraj Patil speaking for himself and V.N. Khare, J. in his judgement concurring with the majority view, has observed that there are no fetters on the powers of the Court/Tribunal. It can direct the parties to lead additional evidence and to produce documents at any stage of the proceedings before they are concluded if on facts and circumstances of the case it is deemed just and necessary in the interest of justice. : 4 : 4. Mr.Thokade, on the other hand, submits that the bank knew very well that the workman had denied his signature on the document and had therefore examined the handwriting expert at the enquiry held against him. He submits that the bank has not furnished any reason as to why despite due diligence, it was unable to examine the handwriting expert after the bank’s officer was examined before the Court. He further submits that there is no material to indicate that despite an application having been made for witness summons the bank could not produce the handwriting expert at the appropriate stage i.e. before the evidence of the workman was recorded. The learned advocate also relies on the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Rashidunniassa and another v/s. Ata Rasool, AIR 1958 ALLAHABAD 67 AIR 1958 ALLAHABAD 67 AIR 1958 ALLAHABAD 67 which has held that the plaintiff could not be permitted to lead any evidence after the defendant’s evidence had been closed to prove that there was a fraud or misrepresentation which he had earlier alleged but had not proved. He has also relied on the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Kulwant Singh v/s. Makhan Singh reported in AIR 1993 PUNJAB AND AIR 1993 PUNJAB AND AIR 1993 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 106 HARYANA 106 HARYANA 106 wherein it has been observed that the plaintiff must substantiate his pleas that the defendant had not executed certain documents by examining the handwriting expert before the defendant was examined. The High Court has held that the plaintiff had no right : 5 : to rebutt the evidence of the defendant at a belated stage. 6. Having considered the submissions made by either party before me, in my opinion, the orders impugned in the petition do not warrant any interference. The bank was aware of the fact that the workman had denied his signature on exhibit C9. It was for this very reason that a handwriting expert had been examined before the enquiry officer by the bank. It is surprising therefore, that once the enquiry was held to be vitiated and the bank was leading evidence before the Court to justify its order of dismissal, it did not bother to lead evidence of the handwriting expert. There is not even a whisper in the application for witness summons that the petitioner bank was unable to examine the witness i.e. the handwriting expert despite due diligence and that such evidence came within the knowledge of the bank only after it had completed its evidence. Although the Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (supra) has held that there are no fetters on the powers of the Tribunal to permit evidence to be led, there is no doubt that the evidence must be led at an appropriate stage. In fact the Supreme Court in Salem Advocates Bar Association (supra), has held that additional evidence may be permitted to be led if the Court is of the view : 6 : that a party could not produce such evidence despite due diligence. The strict rules of evidence do not apply to industrial adjudication. However, this would not give a free hand to the bank to fill in the lacunae in its evidence by examining the handwriting expert after the workman has disclosed his defence. 7. In such circumstances, in my opinion, there is no need for me to interfere with the possible view taken by both the Courts below while exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. Petition rejected.