The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to afford the petitioner an opportunity to cross-examine a witness who had tendered a document as evidence.

JUDGMENT

Arindam Sinha, J. - Mr. Rath, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, requisites were duly put in for service upon opposite party no.1 (workman) pursuant to order dated 16th November, 2022. Noting is that postal article was returned with endorsement 'left'. He submits further, since direction was for the case before the labour Court to remain stayed till next date and for listing on 7th December, 2022, said Court is proceeding with the case and has fixed next date for hearing on 3rd February, 2023. He submits still further, the order was communicated to the Court below as well as learned advocate for the workman engaged in that Court.

2. We have examined the postal article. The endorsement simply says 'left'. We presume there was no intimation as otherwise the postal authority would have taken steps to forward the article. In the circumstances, we find there was good service.

3. Mr. Rath had submitted by, inter alia, impugned order dated 28th June, 2022, the labour Court, purportedly relying on rule 16 in Odisha Industrial Disputes Rules, 1959, marked a salary slip produced by the workman after conclusion of evidence, as Ext.3. He submitted, the exhibit slip cannot be relied upon as evidence. On query from Court he draw attention to the objection filed, from which paragraph-6 is extracted and reproduced below.

'6.That the 1st Party Management humbly submits that the document filed by the 2nd party workman contains no seal and/or signature and is a computer generated document and the petition also does not disclosed from which source he obtained or downloaded the document and in absence of any specific pleading the present application is not maintainable in the eye of law, hence the petition filed by the 2nd party workman is liable to be dismissed with cost.'

4. On further query from Court he submitted, his client made application (annexure-7), on which order dated 5th September, 2022, also under challenge, was made. A passage from said order is extracted and reproduced below.

'Perused the Order, dt.28.06.2022 passed by this Court. After analyzing the materials before it and relying upon Rule 16 of the Orissa Industrial Dispute Rules, 1959, this Court has passed the Order sought to be reviewed/modified. Admittedly, this is a case Registered U/s.2A(2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 filed by the 2nd party/workman. As stated earlier, the document was accepted and marked Exhibit at the stage of argument, which is very much forth coming from Rule 16 of the O.I.D.R., 1959. On a bare perusal of the said document, it does not appear to be a fabricated document. As per the settled principle of law, a party should produce all the documentary evidence in his possession prior to the hearing, so that, the chance of creation of any documentary evidence during trial can be ruled out. However, as stated earlier, the document marked Ext.3, does not appear to be a fabricated document to the naked eye. There is no necessity of its formal proof and the same can be waived out.

In the above facts and circumstances of this case, this Court does not find any reason to modify/review its order passed on dt.28.06.2022. Accordingly, the petition filed by the 1st party/Management on dt.27.7.2022 is rejected being devoid of merit.

Put up on dt.28.09.2022 for argument. Parties to get ready accordingly.'

(emphasis supplied)

He submitted, without opportunity to cross-examine on the document, at argument stage, the labour Court formed opinion on genuineness of it.

5. Rule 16 empowers, inter alia, acceptance of evidence at any stage of the proceeding. Clause (c) under rule 25 provides for reception of evidence taken on affidavit by the labour Court having same powers as vested in a civil Court under Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Simply production of a document and pronouncing it as evidence, does not make it a piece of evidence. The Civil Procedure Code, by rule 4 in order XVIII provides for recording of evidence. Examination-in-chief is to be by aff