Industrial Tribunals have the power to receive evidence on affidavit in accordance with Order 18, Rule 4 of the CPC.

JUDGMENT :

V. Eswaraiah, J.—Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the respondents.

2. The petitioners in all these writ petitions are one and the same and the second respondent is a different workman in all the writ petitions. The petitioners filed these writ petitions to issue a writ of certiorari, calling for the records relating to individual Interlocutory Applications filed in different Industrial Disputes filed by the concerned second respondent in each of the industrial dispute and to quash the order dated 19-1-2004 made in the Interlocutory Applications.

3. The petitioners' company is the Private Limited Company, engaged in the business of polishing rough diamonds of its clients and exporting the same. The concerned second respondent in each of the writ petitions were appointed as trainees. It is stated that the said workmen were disengaged. Aggrieved by the same, the workmen raised conciliation proceedings and thereafter filed an application u/s 2-A(ii) of the Industrial Disputes Act (in short Act), challenging their termination, before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam.

4. It is the case of the workmen that they were appointed in January, 2000 and worked continuously till they were discharged in March, 2002 and were drawing an amount of Rs. 1,500/- per month. It is their case that without paying any compensation and without giving any prior notice, their services were discharged unceremoniously. They have filed appointment letters as well as the discharge orders before the Industrial Tribunal. It is stated that the decision of the management in discharging them on the ground that their work is not satisfactory, amounts to casting a stigma on the conduct of the workmen and therefore, they raised a dispute. As the conciliation proceedings have been failed, industrial disputes were filed u/s 2-A(ii) of the Act for adjudication of the dispute holding that the discharge order made by the petitioners is arbitrary, unlawful, vindictive and unfair labour practice and to direct the management to reinstate them with all consequential benefits. The workmen filed the sworn affidavits as evidence on record before the Labour Court, Visakhapatnam and submitted themselves for cross-examination by the management.

5. The management filed different Interlocutory Applications in the respective Industrial Disputes u/s 11 of the Act, praying the Labour Court not to accept the affidavits as evidence on record by the Labour Court and to record the evidence in the open Court itself. It is stated that the Industrial Disputes Act is a self-contained Act and the provisions of the CPC are not applicable to the Industrial Disputes except to the limited extent as enumerated u/s 11(3) of the Act and Rule 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Disputes Rules. It is stated that the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Nalgonda Co-operative Marketing Society "Limited v. the Labour Court, Hyderabad and Ors. 1993 (2) APLJ 336, held that the provisions of the CPC will not apply to the Tribunals and the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court is not a Civil Court and therefore, the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, as amended from time to time, pannot be made applicable to the Industrial Tribunals. The Labour Court constituted u/s 7 of the Act is not a Civil Court and u/s 11 of the Act, only limited provisions of CPC are made applicable to the Labour Court and all the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, except those mentioned u/s 11 of the Act are not applicable to the Labour Court. It is further stated that the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd., Hyderabad v. T.Bal Reddy and another 2002 (2) ALD 499, also taken the same view. It is further stated that the amended provisions of Order 18, Rule 4 of the CPC are not made applicable to the Industrial Tribunals u/s 11 of the Act and therefore, the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court cannot take evidence based on the affi