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.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

Heard Mr. P. K. Roy, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. A. Chakraborty, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. Mr. K. Gogoi, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and Mr. J. K. Sharma, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent No.2.

2. The legality and validity of the order dated 25.07.2016 passed by the learned Labour Court, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in Reference Case No.3/2015, have been put to challenge by way of the present writ petition.

3. The issue which has been raised in the instant proceedings is as to whether the Respondent No.2 herein could have been permitted to adduce evidence when the Respondent No.2 did not take a plea in the written statement.

4. For the purpose of adjudication of the above noted issue which is being raised in the present writ petition, this Court finds it pertinent briefly to take note of the facts which led to the filing of the instant writ petition.

5. The Petitioner herein was appointed as a Sub-Editor in the newspaper “Asam Bani” which was a unit of the Assam Tribune Group of Newspapers w.e.f. 01.01.1987 on the basis of an order issued on 22.01.1987. On 04.06.2014, a show cause notice was issued by the Editor of “Asam Bani” alleging that the Petitioner was not found available during the official duty hours from 31.05.2014 to 03.06.2014 after signing the Attendance Register. The Petitioner claims that he had submitted his reply on 07.06.2014 stating that he was very much present on those days and did his assigned jobs.

6. It is the further case of the Petitioner that on 05.06.2014, another show cause notice was issued alleging that the Petitioner had submitted an article titled “Public Interest Journalism and Volin Syndrome” in the Souvenir Book “Role of Media in serving the Public interest” and released by the Press Council of India on the National Press Day dated 16.11.2013 wherein the Petitioner had given his designation as Editor, Asam Bani which according to the Management was falsification of facts and misleading the public. The Petitioner was given 24 hours time to submit reply to the said show cause notice. The Petitioner further claims that he had hurriedly submitted a reply on the 07.06.2014 stating inter- alia that he had only submitted the article through e-mail with his name and he was not aware about the designation as published in the Souvenir and perhaps the Press Council of India themselves put the designation as Editor.

7. The Petitioner further states that prior to the two show- cause notices dated 04.06.2014 and 05.06.2014, another show- cause notice was issued on 27.05.2014, alleging that one Smt. Enaxi Saikia Baruah had submitted a written complaint that the Petitioner who was the President of the Assam Journalist Union, had used her name in the list of members of the Journalist Union of Assam for procuring a liquor license from the Excise Department. The Petitioner was directed to file the reply which the Petitioner claims to have submitted a reply on 28.05.2014 denying and disputing the said allegations. It is further seen from the pleadings in the writ petition that the Petitioner was issued another show cause notice on 02.06.2014 alleging that the Management of the Respondent No.2 possessed documented proof that Petitioner had written a series of editorial articles in the editorial page of “Dainik Agradoot” viz. “Pratyasha Aru Ashanka” dated 19.05.2014, “Radiya Tapes” dated 30.04.2014 and “Grismadah” dated 28.04.20