The court emphasized that additional documents during appeal require valid justification, and their admission cannot violate principles of natural justice.

ORDER :

Renuka Yara, J.

1. Heard Ms. Sree Ramya, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. U.D.Jai Bhima Rao, learned counsel for respondent. Perused the record.

2. The Civil Revision petition is filed by the petitioners/petitioners/ respondents aggrieved by the order dated 04.02.2025 in I.A.No.29 of 2024 in I.D.No.1 of 2023 before the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal), wherein, the said petition filed to receive additional documents at the stage of appeal has been dismissed.

3. The background facts of the case are that the petitioners herein have initiated disciplinary inquiry against the respondent herein under POSH Act/Rules and on the basis of the inquiry report, issued letter dated 07.03.2023 terminating the respondent from service. Aggrieved by the same, challenging the inquiry report, the respondent filed Appeal No.1 of 2023 alleging violation of principles of natural justice apart from other irregularities in conducting the inquiry and submitting inquiry report. During pendency of said appeal filed by the respondent, the petitioners herein have filed I.A.No.29 of 2024 in I.D.No.1 of 2023 to receive additional documents filed on behalf of the petitioner Nos.1 to 4.

4. Upon filing of said I.A, the respondent herein filed counter-affidavit opposing the receipt of additional documents consisting of WhatsApp group conversations and screenshots.

5. Upon considering the case of both the rival parties, the Tribunal dismissed the Interlocutory Application. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is preferred.

6. In grounds of revision, the petitioners have pleaded that the Tribunal has erred in considering the fact that appeal was a statutory appeal and the scope of enquiry for receiving additional material or evidence can be entertained and the same cannot be opposed. The respondents have taken objections about the cause title in the Interlocutory Application being incorrect warranting correction twice. Further, the respondent took objection about the signature of the deponent therein being forged. Lastly, additional documents filed were after filing of written arguments and commencement of oral arguments. All the aforementioned objections were not taken by the respondent about the contents of the pen drives or the documents of WhatsApp conversation before the appellate authority. The revision petitioners have filed list of documents including the interrogation report of the Internal Complaints Committee which is completely based on audio recordings about which the respondent is fully aware. Further, a person can have more than one type of signature and the difference in signatures in itself cannot be a ground to dispute the documents. Reference is made to judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M/s. Star Paper Mills Limited v. M/s. Beharilal Madanlal Jaipuria Ltd. and others (Civil Appeal No.4102 of 2013), wherein it is held that once a signature is not denied, the author of the document need not be examined. Though a certificate under Section 63 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam has been filed, said certificate was not considered claiming the same to be valid. The main appeal is posted for final hearing and therefore, receipt of additional documents is a must. As such, the petitioners pray that the revision be allowed with a direction to receive the additional documents.

7. The respondent opposed the petition alleging that the scope of enquiry for