Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Gujarat Pipavav Port Limited, employed the respondent as a compounder. The respondent was served with a charge-sheet on 29.10.2002, and after a departmental inquiry, his services were terminated on 20.12.2002. The respondent raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to the Labour Court, Amreli, and registered as Reference (T) No. 37 of 2003. The respondent filed his statement of claim on 09.12.2003, and the petitioner filed its reply on 12.04.2004. On 13.10.2006, the petitioner filed an application (IA No. 1 of 2020, Exhibit 141) under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking permission to adduce additional evidence. The Labour Court, by order dated 26.04.2024, rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner had ample opportunity to lead evidence earlier and that the application was filed after an inordinate delay of about 17 years from the date of reference. The petitioner challenged this order before the Gujarat High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that the Labour Court had exercised its discretion judiciously and that there was no perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. The High Court noted that the petitioner had not shown any diligence in seeking to adduce additional evidence and that the delay was unexplained. The petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged. No order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Section 11A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Power to permit additional evidence - The Labour Court has discretion to permit parties to adduce additional evidence under Section 11A, but such discretion must be exercised judiciously and not to fill gaps in evidence after inordinate delay. The court rejected the employer's application filed after 17 years of the reference, holding that the employer failed to show diligence and that permitting evidence would cause prejudice to the workman. (Paras 5-6) B) Constitutional Law - Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India - Judicial review of Labour Court orders - The High Court will not interfere with an interlocutory order of the Labour Court unless it is perverse, arbitrary, or suffers from jurisdictional error. The impugned order refusing additional evidence was found to be reasonable and within the Labour Court's discretion. (Para 7) C) Industrial Law - Delay and laches - The employer's application for additional evidence was filed after the workman had already led evidence and the matter was at the stage of arguments. The Labour Court held that the employer had ample opportunity to lead evidence earlier and the delay was not explained. The High Court affirmed that such delay disentitles the employer to relief. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Labour Court was justified in rejecting the employer's application under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to adduce additional evidence in a reference pending since 2003, and whether the High Court should interfere with such order under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Labour Court's order dated 26.04.2024 rejecting the employer's application to adduce additional evidence. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Section 11A of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Power of Labour Court to permit additional evidence
- Delay and laches in seeking permission to adduce evidence
- Scope of judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India
