Case Note & Summary
The case arose from an industrial dispute where the respondent workman had challenged his dismissal from service. The petitioner, a company, had terminated the respondent’s services on 30.09.2014 following disciplinary proceedings. The respondent raised an industrial dispute under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1988 read with Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and filed a claim statement before the Labour Court seeking reinstatement with full backwages. The Labour Court framed issues including the fairness of the enquiry and legality of the dismissal. During the trial, the petitioner’s witness RW2 was examined and cross-examined, and documents were marked. After evidence was closed and the matter posted for final arguments, the petitioner filed applications I.A.Nos.12 to 14 to recall RW2 and produce additional documents to counter certain allegations raised by the respondent’s counsel during arguments regarding employment at the Bengaluru unit after closure of the Tumkur unit. Those applications were allowed, and RW2 was recalled and two additional documents were marked. Subsequently, the petitioner filed fresh applications I.A.Nos.15 and 16 under Order XVIII Rule 17 and Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) CPC to again recall RW2 and produce three more documents allegedly to further rebut the same allegations. The Principal District Judge dismissed these applications with costs of Rs.5,000, observing that they were an attempt to protract the proceedings and fill lacunae. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that the strict rules of CPC do not apply to Labour Court proceedings and that principles of natural justice required an opportunity to counter the respondent’s arguments; it was contended that the trial court passed the order hastily without hearing on objections. The respondent opposed the petition, citing the Supreme Court decision in Firestone Tyre to argue that once the enquiry is held proper, no further evidence is necessary, and the repeated applications amounted to abuse of process. The High Court dismissed the writ petition. It held that Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC is not meant to enable parties to recall witnesses at will or to fill omissions noticed during arguments; such power cannot be exercised repeatedly. The court noted that the petitioner had already availed the opportunity to recall RW2 once and the additional documents now sought were from 2016 and in its possession earlier, indicating a clear attempt to fill lacunae. The High Court further held that when the domestic enquiry was found to be fair and proper, no further evidence is mandatory for the management, though it may adduce evidence in response to the workman’s material, but not in piecemeal. It concluded that the trial court’s finding was not perverse and did not warrant interference under Article 227. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure – Scope of Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XVIII Rule 17, Section 151 – The provision is not intended to enable parties to recall any witness for further examination or cross-examination which could have been produced when the evidence was being recorded; it cannot be used routinely or to fill omissions noticed during arguments. The court below dismissed repeated applications to recall RW2 and produce additional documents, finding them an attempt to protract proceedings and fill lacunae – Held, such dismissal is proper and not perverse (Paras 13-14, 16). B) Labour Law – Evidence after Enquiry held Proper – Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Sections 2A, 10(4-A) (Karnataka Amendment) – When the Labour Court has held the domestic enquiry to be fair and proper, no further evidence is mandatory for the management to justify its action; it may adduce additional evidence in response to the workman's material but not in a piecemeal manner or to fill gaps after closure of evidence – Held that the petitioner having already recalled RW2 once and marked documents, further attempt to produce documents from 2016 which were in possession earlier, is impermissible (Paras 9, 13). C) Constitutional Law – Article 227 Supervisory Jurisdiction – Constitution of India, Article 227 – The High Court under Article 227 exercises limited supervisory jurisdiction to correct errors of jurisdiction or perversity; the trial court’s dismissal of applications to recall witness, being a plausible view based on the conduct of the management, does not warrant interference – Held that the impugned order is not perverse and the petition is dismissed (Para 16).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the applications under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC to recall a witness and produce additional documents could be allowed repeatedly to fill lacunae in evidence, and whether the trial court's dismissal of such applications was justified
Final Decision
The writ petition was dismissed. The impugned order of the trial court was upheld, holding that repeated applications to recall RW2 and produce additional documents were an attempt to protract proceedings and fill lacunae. The trial court’s finding was not perverse, and no interference was called for under Article 227. The costs of Rs.5,000 imposed by the trial court were maintained.
Law Points
- Provisions of CPC and Evidence Act not applicable stricto sensu to Labour Court
- but principles of natural justice must be observed
- Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC not intended for routine recall of witnesses
- recalling witness to fill lacunae in evidence is impermissible
- enquiry held proper and legal obviates need for further evidence
- repeated applications for recall amount to abuse of process
