High Court
Case Details
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 4540 of 2012 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. -------- The Samaj, Gopabandhu Bhawan, Buxi Bazar, Cuttack, represented through its General Manager, Suresh Chandra Mantry, aged about 64 years, S/o. Late Krushna Chandra Mantry -Versus- Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar Dist: Khurda and others … Petitioner … Opp. Parties For Petitioner For Opp. Parties : : M/s. Satyabrata Mohanty S.K. Das, S.S. Mohapatra & P.K. Das
Legal Reasoning
case where interference of this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution is called for. 13.
Arguments
Mr. B.S. Tripathy-I [For O.P. No.2) P R E S E N T: ---------- THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE B.N.MAHAPATRA Date of Judgment: 12.03.2013 B.N.Mahapatra,J. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 20.12.2011 passed by the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in I.D. Case No.9/99 under Annexure-5, wherein the learned Labour Court has rejected the petition dated 09.11.2011 filed by the petitioner- Management for sending the disputed signatures again to the 2 Handwriting Expert on the ground that the said disputed signatures have already been examined by the Handwriting Expert. 2. Petitioner’s case in a nut-shell is that the petitioner organization namely, “The Samaja” is a premier Odia daily newspaper which is being published since 1919. Opposite party No.2-workman was initially working as a news representative/news contributor from 1995 on contract basis and providing news items and was being paid on column centimeter basis only after publication of the news in daily “The Samaja”. After contributing the same for some time he had stopped the contribution of news to the petitioner-Organization. But later on he has raised the industrial dispute before the Labour Conciliation Machinery initially claiming for regularization of his service as a Sub-Editor and subsequently changed it as termination of his service, but due to his non-cooperation it was ended in failure and finally referred to the Government, who in turn sent the dispute with a schedule of reference. The reference was registered as I.D. Case No.9 of 1999 and pending before the learned Labour Court, Bhubaneswar for adjudication. In course of adjudication of the said industrial dispute when the matter was posted for hearing, opposite party No.2-workman filed a petition for examination of the disputed signatures by a Handwriting Expert and the said petition was allowed vide order dated 14.02.2007 and direction was given to the workman to deposit cost of examination by the Hand Writing 3 Expert and to give his specimen signature for comparison. But the workman did not comply with the order by remaining absent since then. Thereafter, the Labour Court passed award on 22.11.2007 answering the schedule of reference in favour of the petitioner/Management with a finding that the termination of opposite party No.2 from service of Sub- Editor w.e.f. 07.09.1997 is legal and justified. Challenging the said award passed in I.D. Case No.9 of 1999, opposite party-workman filed a writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.17313 of 2008 before this Court at a belated stage. This Court disposed of the said writ petition on 18.11.2009 allowing opposite party-workman to deposit the cost within a specified period and to complete the proceeding. The learned Labour Court on 14.02.2007 passed an order directing deposit of Rs.3,000/- and filing of necessary requisites to send the signature to the State Handwriting Bureau for examination and report. On the next date, the Management filed a memo before the learned Court below mentioning the details of documents which are to be sent to the Handwriting Expert for comparison and examination. After receiving the said documents, the Handwriting Bureau has submitted the opinion and the relied documents before the learned Labour Court and also adduced evidence by marking these documents as Exhibits. On examination of the Handwriting Expert, the petitioner-Management came to know that the admitted and vital document like the statement of claim submitted by 4 the opposite party-workman had not been sent for examination and comparison of signature for the reasons best known to the learned Court below. The Order dated 17.02.2007 specifically states about sending of the admitted signatures on the claim statement along with other specimen signatures for necessary comparison and examination to the Handwriting Expert, but on perusal of the forwarding letter of the learned Presiding Officer dated 25.09.2010 (Annexure-2), it is ascertained that no such statement of claim was sent for comparison and examination. Therefore, a petition was filed on 09.11.2011 by the present petitioner highlighting the non-transmission of the relevant documents as per own order of the Court. The learned Tribunal after considering the petition dated 09.11.2011 as well as the objection filed by opposite party-workman rejected the petition filed by petitioner- Management Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Mr. S. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the learned Labour Court has passed an erroneous and illegal order, which is liable to be quashed. The previous order of the learned Labour Court and material available on record have not been taken into consideration while passing the impugned order. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the admitted signatures on the statement of claim, which are vital documents to throw some light, were not sent for examination, the 5 learned tribunal has committed error in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner. 4. Per contra, Mr. B.S. Tripathy, learned counsel appearing for opposite party No.2-workman submitted that neither in the order of this Court nor in the order of the learned Labour Court there is any direction to send statement of claim to the Handwriting Expert. It is further submitted that after order dated 02.03.2012 passed by the learned Labour Court in I.D. Case No.9 of 1999 under Annexure-7 wherein the Court below has allowed the petition filed on behalf of the Management for withdrawal of the petition filed on 18.01.2012 regarding recall of Handwriting Expert/CW-1 for further examination and the workman filed a petition to allow him to cross-examine MW-1 in terms of order of this Court dated 18.11.2009, the present petition has become infructuous. 5. On the rival factual and legal contentions advanced by the parties, the only question that falls for consideration by this Court is as to whether in the facts and circumstances order dated 20.12.2011 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court under Annexure-5 rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner-Management for sending the disputed signature for examination again by the Handwriting Expert is justified and sustainable in law. 6 6. The dispute in the present case is with regard to genuineness of the signature of the workman appearing in the agreement. Management’s case is that the signature of the workman appearing in the agreement is genuine whereas the workman’s case is that the signature in the agreement is not genuine. Handwriting Expert opined that the signature in the agreement is not the signature of the workman. Petitioner’s grievance is that signature of the workman appearing in the claim statement should have been sent along with signature and other documents for proper examination vide order dated 17.02.2007. 7. In the instant case, the following reference has been made for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal. “Whether the determination of service of Pitambar Mishra Sub-editor by the Management “The Samaja” w.e.f. 07.09.1997 is legal and/or justified? If not, to what relief Mr. Mishra is entitled to.” 8. In the above context, the Management wants to rely upon the agreement stated to have been executed by the workman which the workman seriously disputed on the ground that the signature in the agreement is not his signature. Therefore, to ascertain as to whether the signature of the workman appearing in the agreement is genuine or not, the same was sent to the Handwriting Expert along with other documents for comparison and examination. Annexure-2 contains the 7 documents, which were sent to the Handwriting Expert for comparison and examination, reads thus: “Enclosures 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. - Xerox copy of cash voucher (Ext.A & A/1) Agreement dt. 8.6.95 (original) (Ext.E, X & X/1) Original Treasury Challan showing deposit of Rs.5,100/- - Copy of Exhibit.1 for admitted signatures dt. 12.11.92 - Copy of Exhibit.2 for admitted - signature dt. 04.05.94 - 1 sheet. 3 sheets 1 sheet 1 sheet 1 sheet Six sheets of specimen signature of Sri Pitambar Mishra having six Signatures in each sheet.” 9. On the basis of those documents, the Handwriting Expert opined and furnished the report in a sealed cover under Annexure-3. The said report has been marked by the Labour Court as Exhibit-7 for workman without objection. The case was posted to 19.08.2011, on which date, the first party-Management filed a petition simply to summon the Handwriting Expert for examination with no allegation as made in this writ application. On 19.09.2011, the Management without any objection and demur cross-examined the Handwriting Expert. The Management filed another petition to send the statement of claim along with admitted and disputed signatures again to the Handwriting Expert for examination and comparison. The petition was rejected by the Labour Court being devoid of any merit. 8 10. Since the genuineness of the signature of the workman appearing in the agreement has been examined and compared with reference to various documents stated supra by the Handwriting Expert who opines that the signature appearing in the agreement is not genuine and is not the signature of the workman, in which regard, the Management has cross-examined the Handwriting Expert, whose evidence remains unshaken in the cross-examination, there is no need to send the statement of claim along with other documents again to the Handwriting Expert for the purpose of comparison and re-examination to find out the genuineness of the signature of the workman appearing in the agreement. 11. Apart from the above, on 18.01.2012, the Management filed an application for recalling Handwriting Expert/CW-1 for further examination and the workman filed a petition to allow him to cross- examine MW-1. On 02.03.2012, the Management has withdrawn its petition dated 18.01.2012 and the Labour Court directed the matter to be taken up on 30.03.2012 for further cross-examination of MW-1 on recall. 12. In the facts situation, this Court does not find any irregularity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar dated 20.12.2011 (Annexure-5) and it is not a fit 9
Decision
In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. …...…………………….. B.N.Mahapatra, J Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated 12TH March, 2013/skj