The remanding of a matter requires fresh evidence solicitation under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT th ON THE 19 OF AUGUST, 2025 MISC. PETITION No. 4102 of 2025 RAJMANI PANDEY Versus J.P.BINA THERMAL POWER PLANT (JAI PRAKASH BENCHERA)

Appearance:

Shri Utkarsh Agrawal - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Dharmendra Soni, learned counsel for the respondent.

ORDER The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 28.06.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , Labour Court, Sagar in COCA-127/2017/ IDA /Ref. whereby the application submitted by the respondent/employer under Section 151 of CPC to submit two witnesses for examination has been allowed.

2. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter was remanded by this Court vide order dated 11.02.2025 passed in MP No. 3991/2024 (Annexure P/4) with the direction to the Labour Court to decide the matter afresh on the merits of the case. It has further been submitted that the matter was required to be heard on the argument, which has already been tendered by the parties prior to remand before the Labour Court and therefore, no fresh application for submitting new evidence can be Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAGHVENDRA allowed. It is further submitted that the respondent has also not given any reason in the application to submit any other new evidence.

3. Per contra, refuting the submission of the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the matter has been remanded back by this Court to decide the question on merit. The question before this Court was whether the petitioner falls within the definition of 'Workman' as per the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity 'Act, 1947'). Therefore, it is required to submit the evidence in support of the fact that the petitioner does not fall within the definition of 'Workman'.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. It is evident from the order dated 11.02.2024 passed in MP No.

3991/2024 (Annexure P/4) that this Court after deliberation on the issue raised by the petitioner herein that whether the petitioner falls within the definition of 'Workman' as per Act, 1947, has remanded the matter back to decide it afresh on merits of the case. The arguments tendered earlier cannot be the basis to decide the matter afresh on merits because the argument, which had already been tendered by the parties, had culminated into the award, which has been set aside and the matter has been remanded back to decide it afresh. Therefore, parties are at liberty to submit the material before the court below on the point whether the petitioner falls within the definition of 'Workman' under the Act, 1947. The petitioner is also at liberty to submit any evidence in rebuttal of the evidence submitted by the respondent. However, prayer has been made by the petitioner that the respondent be restricted to only one chance to submit all evidence on a date fixed by the Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAGHVENDRA court below.

6. Prayer of the petitioner seems to be reasonable and therefore, this petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent to submit all the evidence on the date fixed by the Labour Court and no further date shall be fixed for any other evidence. In response, if petitioner wants to submit any evidence, he is at liberty, for that too, only once chance be given to the petitioner for cross-examination and submit his evidence. It is further observed that the evidence, which is already available on record, shall also be considered by the Labour Court to pass a final award.

7. With the aforesaid, this petition is disposed of.