Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 62780
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P. Dhanabal, J
A. Umapathy S/o. Annamalai – Appellant
Versus
The Management, Industrial Fans (India) Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
W.P. No.27171 of 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. K. Rangesh
For the Respondents: Ms. J. Jyothi
Incomplete evidence cannot be eschewed; it must remain for consideration in the final judgment to ensure fair trial.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 33(c)(2) - Writ of Certiorari - Petition to quash the Labour Court's order rejecting the evidence of a witness after partial cross-examination - Court held that incomplete evidence cannot be eschewed and emphasized the importance of complete cross-examination for fair trial. (Paras 5, 6, 8)
(B) Legal Precedent - Court referred to prior judgments that support the position that evidence once recorded should remain and be evaluated at the time of final judgment - A party aggrieved by incomplete evidence retains the right to challenge it. (Paras 7-10)
Facts of the case:
A writ petition was filed against the order of the Labour Court which allowed the eschewing of evidence recorded from a witness who was partially cross-examined by the petitioner.
Findings of Court:
The order eschewing evidence is unsustainable; such evidence must stay within the records for final judgment.
Issues: The core issue was whether the Labour Court could legally eschew evidence not fully cross-examined.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that legal provisions do not support eschewing evidence based on incomplete cross-examination and mandated that such evidence should be considered in the final judgment.
Result: Writ petition allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition filed challenging the labour court's order to eschew evidence. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. court emphasized the need for complete evidence evaluation and the propriety of eschewing evidence. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. cited previous rulings supporting the retention of evidence for final judgment. (Para 7 , 8) |
ORDER
This Writ petition has been filed as against the order passed by the II Additional Labour Court, Chennai in I.A. No.3 of 2023 in C.P. No.29 of 2021 dated 11.08.2023, wherein the respondent herein has filed a petition before the Labour Court to eschew the evidence recorded as RW1 in C.P. No.29 of 2021 and the same was allowed. Challenging the said order, the present Writ petition has been filed.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner joined services of the respondent in the month of October 1990 as 'Assistant - Purchase & Accounts' and thereafter, the respondent Management had not paid full wages including the voucher payment to the petitioner and thereafter, the petitioner was suspended. Therefore, the petitioner filed a Claim Petition before the II Additional Labour Court, Chennai under Section 33 (c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act in C.P. No.29 of 2021. The respondent also filed counter in the claim petition. Thereafter, the petitioner's side evidence was closed after examining the witnesses. In C.P. No.31 of 2021, the respondent let evidence as RW1 through its Legal and Administrative Officer A. Jeyachandran and marked 24 documents through him. The petitioner conducted a common cross examination of the above witness that was adduced in C.P. No.31 of 2021 and the same has been adapted in this case also. Due to discrepancies in the evidence of RW1, after cross examining the above said witness, when the matter was adjourned to 16.06.2023 for continuation of cross examination, the respondent filed an interlocutory application in I.A. No.3 of 2023 to eschew the evidence and the same was allowed by the Labour Court. The same cannot be eschewed and form part of the records and it is to be decided at the time of pronouncing judgment by the concerned Court. After elaborate cross examination, the Labour Court simply eschewed the evidence of RW1 and the same is against law and will affect the fair trial and therefore, the order passed by the Labour Court is liable to be quashed.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that before the Labour Court, the petitioner filed a Claim Petition in C.P. No.29 of 2021 and the same was hotly contested by the respondent. After completion of petitioner's side evidence, the respondent's side evidence was adduced by examining RW1. The cross examination of RW1 conducted in C.P. No.31 of 2021 was adopted by the petitioner in the claim petition filed by him in C.P. No.29 of 2021. RW1 was partly cross examined. Thereafter, he was unable to attend the Court due to administrative reasons. Therefore, the respondent filed a petition to eschew the evidence and to adduce fresh evidence. The Labour Court after elaborate discussions, held that since RW1 was relieved from the service of the respondent, the evidence of RW1 was eschewed. Therefore, the order passed by the Labour Court is in order and due to eschew the evidence of RW1, it will noway affect the right of the petitioner and if any fresh evidence is examined, the petitioner can have elaborate cross examination and therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
5. In this case, the petitioner herein filed a Claim Petition in C.P. No.29 of 2021, wherein the petitioner's side evidence was examined and closed. But on the respondent's side, they examined RW1, who was the Staff of the respondent company. The evidence of RW1 was also cross examined to some extent and thereafter, since RW1 was relieved from the service of the respondent, they filed an application before the Labour Court to eschew
