Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Mauna M. Bhatt, J.
Harbhamsinh Bhagwatsinh Jat – Petitioner
Versus
Disman Pharmaceuticals And Chemicals Ltd. – Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 849 of 2022
Decided On : 24-01-2024
JUDGMENT :
Mauna M. Bhatt, J.
1. Workmen have filed this petition seeking following reliefs:
(b) Your Lordship be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction, directing the learned Labour Court to reopen the stage of evidence of the petitioners, permit the petitioners to file their respective affidavits and permit the petitioners to proceed with the matter in any stipulation of time that this Hon’ble Court thinks fit.
(c) Pending admission, hearing and disposal of this petition, your Lordship may be pleased to stay the proceeding pending before the learned Labour Court, as the right of the petitioners to lead the evidence is still not opened by the learned Labour Court as well adjourned is also not granted.
(d) Your Lordships be pleased to grant such other and further relief as may be deemed fit in the interest of justice.”
2. The facts in brief are as under:
For the alleged illegal termination, the workmen had raised dispute before the Labour Court, Ahmedabad and the same is pending adjudication since 2000 registered as Reference Case No.2008/2000. It is case of the petitioners that during the pendency of the reference, a purshis was given by workmen vide Exh.201 dated 07.03.2014 to close the stage of evidence, consequentially vide Exh.202, the stage of oral evidence by respondent Company was also closed and vide Exh.219 dated 20.02.2019, the stage of leading evidence by company was closed. At the time when such purshis for closing to lead evidence was filed by workmen, they were not available or traceable. However, on account of Covid-19 pandemic all went to their native place where they were contacted by their co-workmen and thereafter application dated 17.07.2021 was preferred seeking to reopen the stage of leading evidence and to examine the witnesses. The said application was rejected by order dated 17.12.2021, aggrieved by which, present petition is filed.
3. Heard Mr. P.C.Chaudhari, learned advocate for the petitioners - workmen and Mr. Dipak Dave, learned advocate for the respondent - Company.
4. Mr. Chaudhari, learned advocate for the petitioners made following submissions:
4.1. The order dated 17.12.2021 of the Labour Court, Ahmedabad rejecting the application of the petitioners seeking to reopen the stage of evidence of the petitioners – workmen is illegal. The Labour Court held that the dispute is of the year 2000 and since the matter is kept for arguments, leading of evidence cannot be permitted at this stage. On account of termination, the remaining workman left the place and working in different parts of country so they were not traceable, however on account of Covid-19 Pandemic all went to their native place and through their co-workers they could be traced. Out of 50 workmen, 32 workmen have been examined before the Labour Court and all of them have been cross-examined by the advocate for the respondent – Company. It is true that petitioners have closed their right to lead the evidence on 07.03.2014 and respondent- company’s right was closed on 20.02.2019 and thereafter the matter was placed for written submissions on 01.03.2019, however, since the workmen are now available present application dated 17.07.2021, was filed seeking permission to lead the evidence.
4.2. Further, it is true that the dispute is of 2000, and considerable time has lapsed, however, if the remaining 18 (50-32) workmen are not permitted to lead
The discretion to reopen evidence under Rule 17 of the Industrial Disputes (Gujarat) Rules, 1966 must be exercised judiciously, balancing the rights of both parties and avoiding prejudice.
Parties must be afforded reasonable opportunities to present evidence in labor disputes to ensure procedural fairness, particularly in the context of extraordinary circumstances such as a pandemic.
A party must be afforded a fair opportunity to present their case, even in the face of previous negligence, to uphold the principles of justice.
The necessity of conducting a proper domestic inquiry before dismissal is emphasized, and reliance on inadmissible electronic evidence is criticized.
A management's right to adduce evidence in labor disputes must be exercised timely in written statements, and failure to do so negates the ability to introduce new evidence later.
The existence of a binding settlement under Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act negates claims of workmen, especially when raised after an excessive delay of 19 years.
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
