THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.28918 OF 2008 Dated: 25.11.2009 Between: The District Co-operative Central Bank Limited, Rep. by its General Manager, Nagamallithota, Kakinada, E.G.District. …. Petitioner And 1. The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, rep.by Its Presiding Officer, Visakhapatnam., and Another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.28918 OF 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the District Co-operative Central Bank Limited, Kakinada seeking a declaration that the common order dated 18.12.2008 made in I.A.Nos.124 and 125 of 2008 in I.D.No.5 of 2006 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam as arbitrary and illegal. The facts, in brief, are as under : The 2nd respondent herein, who was an employee of the petitioner Bank was dismissed from service by order dated 25.02.2005. Aggrieved by the same, he filed I.D.No.5 of 2006 under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘I.D. Act’) before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam. The petitioner Bank filed a detailed counter contesting I.D.No.5 of 2006. After the enquiry and hearing, while the I.D. was posted for passing of award, the petitioner Bank filed I.A.Nos.124 & 125 of 2008 to reopen the case and to permit the Bank to receive a document dated 9.12.2000 in evidence respectively. The said applications were dismissed by the Court below by common order dated 18.12.2008 which is under challenge in this writ petition. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. The material on record shows that the writ petitioner / Bank sought to produce in evidence the original explanation dated 9.12.2000 given by the Workman / 2nd respondent herein in response to the charge memo served on him during domestic enquiry. It is not in dispute that a Xerox copy of the said document was already filed by the petitioner Bank along with its counter undertaking to produce the original in the course of enquiry. In the circumstances, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner contends that since no prejudice would be caused to the workman by receiving the original, the Tribunal below committed a grave error in dismissing the applications. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent / workman while relying upon a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in BANK OF BARODA v. G. SRIRAM[1] contended that since the workman is not disputing the validity of the domestic enquiry, no fresh evidence can be permitted to be produced and therefore the impugned order suffers from no legal error. Admittedly in the present case, the Labour Court has already recorded a finding that the domestic enquiry was conducted properly on the basis of the memo filed by the workman that he is not disputing the validity of the domestic enquiry. Thereafter, the matter is coming up for consideration under Section 11-A of the I.D. Act with regard to appropriate relief that can be given to the workman. As held by the Division Bench in G. SRIRAM’S case (1 supra) the law is well-settled that when once domestic enquiry is held to be valid and regular, by virtue of the proviso to Section 11-A of the I.D. Act, the Industrial Tribunal has to exercise its discretion under Section 11-A only on the basis of the evidence already on record. Hence, no fresh evidence can be permitted to be produced and the Labour Court has rightly dismissed the applications filed by the Bank. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. ____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 25.11.2009 gbs Note:- CC by 30.11.2009 (B/O) IVD [1] 2002 (6) ALD 671 (DB)