Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
A.P. Shah, J.
Abbott Laboratories (India) Ltd. ...Petitioner.
Versus
Shri J.D. Jamdar, Member, Industrial Court and another.....Respondents.
Writ Petition Nos. 389, 486, 488 and 489 of 1992, decided on 18-4-1995.
Advocates appeared:
J.P. Cama with Aditya Chitale i/b Salgaonkar Co., for the petitioner.
R.J. Kochar, for the respondents.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE - MAHARASHTRA RECOGNITION OF TRADE UNIONS AND PREVENTION OF UNFAIR LABOUR PRACTICES ACT, 1971 - ORDER XIX RULES 1 AND 2 OF C.P.C. - COURT'S POWER TO DISPOSE OF CASE SOLELY ON BASIS OF AFFIDAVITS - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a group of writ petitions arising from complaints filed under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, by the Abbott Laboratories Employees Union and Abbott Laboratories (India) Ltd. The Industrial Court disposed of the complaints solely on the basis of affidavits filed by the parties, leading to challenges in the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the Industrial Court erred in disposing of the complaints solely on the basis of affidavits. The Court emphasized the importance of oral evidence and cross-examination in ensuring a fair trial, as provided under Order XVIII Rule 4 of the C.P.C.
Issues: 1. Whether the Industrial Court was justified in disposing of the complaints solely on the basis of affidavits filed by the parties. 2. Interpretation and application of Order XIX Rules 1 and 2 of the C.P.C. in the context of evidence presentation in a trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on the provisions of Order XIX Rules 1 and 2 of the C.P.C., which allow the Court to order evidence to be given by affidavit in certain circumstances. However, the Court emphasized that this power is subject to the proviso in Rule 1, which prohibits the Court from ordering evidence by affidavit if either party bona fide desires the production of a witness for cross-examination and the witness can be produced.
Final Decision: The High Court set aside the impugned orders of the Industrial Court and remanded the matter back for disposal in accordance with law, allowing the parties to lead evidence. The Court also directed the Industrial Court to dispose of the complaints expeditiously within four months.
2. The facts leading upto these complaints out of which these petitions arose, are long and complicated and have been related in the judgments delivered by the Industrial Court. No useful purpose will be served by repeating them, since the only question agitated before this Court is whether the Industrial Court was right in disposing of the complaints solely on the basis of the affidavits filed by the parties.
3. It appears that after filing the complaints, interlocutory applications were made for interim reliefs and those interlocutory applications were placed before the learned Judge of the Industrial Court, Mr. Jamdar. The learned Judge, however, proceeded to hear and decide the main complaints on the basis of affidavits filed by the parties at the interim stage as the learned Judge was of the opinion that there was no scope for leading any evidence because the factual position was almost admitted by both parties. It is also required to be mentioned that the company made a request to the learned Judge seeking permission to lead oral evidence, but the request was turned down, since the learned Judge felt that provisions of Rules 1 and 2 of Order XVII of the C.P.C. confer on the Court power to dispose of a case solely on the basis of affidavits. As the learned Judge declined the request of the company to lead oral evidence, written submissions were filed and thereafter the learned Judge decided the complaints in the manner indicated earlier.
4. The only question, which falls for my consideration, is whether the course adopted by the learned Judge in disposing of the complaints solely on the basis of the affidavits is in accordance with the provisions of Order XIX R (1) and (2) of C.P.C.
5. It is now well settled that in the absence of any agreement between the parties and in absence of any order made by the Court under Rule 1, Order XIX of C.P.C. and except in cases in which an order is made for examination by interrogatories or examination on commission, the witness at the trial should be examined viva vose and in open Court. Order XVIII of C.P.C. deals with the subject of hearing of the suit and examination of witnesses and Rule 4 makes it mandatory to take evidence of a witness orally and in open Court in the presence and under the personal supervision of the Judge. These basic features are not without exception. Section 30 of the Code which invests Civil Court with certain powers says that the Court may, at any time, either of its own motion or on the application of any party, order any fact to be proved by an affidavit. This clearly shows that the Court can treat affidavits as proof of the facts contained therein, the prior requisite, of course, being there. The rules are to be found in O. 19. That Order consists of three rules. With the third rule I am not concerned because it provides for matters to which the affidavits have to be confined. The first two rules read as follows:
"1. Any Court may at any time for sufficient reason order that any particular fact or facts may be proved by affidavit, or that the affidavit of any witness may be read at the hearing, on such conditions as the Court thinks reasonable:
Provided that where it appears to the Courts that either party bona fide desires the production of witness for cross-examination, and such that witness can be produced, an order shal
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
