1 wp 6369.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6369 OF 2011 The Maharashtra State Co­op. Marketing Federation Ltd. Mumbai and another .. Petitioners Versus Dilip Manga Choudhari .. Respondent Shri S. S. Thombre, Advocate for Petitioners. Shri S. S. Patil, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 08TH SEPTEMBER, 2011. PER COURT : . The respondent has filed complaint challenging his termination. The respondent led examination in chief by affidavit. Thereafter, the Court directed the present respondent to prove the documents by oral evidence i. e. to prove the contents of the document by oral evidence. The said order is assailed by the present petitioner. 2. Shri Thombre, the learned counsel for petitioners submits 2 wp 6369.11 that the present respondent has led the examination in chief by affidavit. There is no provision to allow the respondent to lead oral evidence. In all the cases it is mandatory to lead the examination in chief by affidavit only. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Ameer Trading Corporation Ltd. Vs. Shapoorji Data Processing Ltd. reported in AIR 2004 S.C. 355. The learned counsel further contends that the documents sought to be relied and sought to be proved by the oral evidence are inadmissible in evidence due to various reasons. In view of that fact, also the respondent cannot be allowed to lead oral evidence to prove the contents of said document. 3. Shri Patil, the learned counsel for the respondent supports the order. 4. The Labour Court has directed the respondent to prove the contents of documents by oral evidence, though the examination in chief by affidavit is submitted by the respondent. The Labour Court has nowhere held the said documents either to be admissible or inadmissible. When the said documents would be tendered in oral evidence, the present petitioner will have a right 3 wp 6369.11 to agitate about its admissibility and the Labour Court would decide the said objections about the admissibility, if such objection about admissibility is taken by the petitioner. 5. I do not find any error committed by the Court in directing the respondent to prove the contents of the said documents as the documents are more and the affidavit run in 26 pages and same is for the convenience of the Court. 6. The writ petition is accordingly disposed in terms of aforesaid observations. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Sept. 11