M/S. Oswal Books Manufacturing Depot v. Adam Noor Mohd. Khatri and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC1 Sept 2008WP/2952/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the Labour Court and Industrial Court orders in a writ petition challenging the termination of an employee's services. The High Court held that the Labour Court erred in law by not complying with Section 73 of the Evidence Act when determining that the resignation letter's signature was forged. The matter was remanded for a fresh decision following proper evidence procedur

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgments of the Labour Court and Industrial Court set aside; matter remanded to the Labour Court for a fresh decision within six months.

M/s. Oswal Books Manufacturing ] Depot, a Partnership firm ] registered under Partnership ] Act, 1932, having its office ] at 7-A, Sarvodaya Mills Compound] Tardeo, Mumbai 400 034 ]..Petitioner

1. Adam Noor Mohd. Khatri ] C/o. Khatri Ayub Ishaq ] 151, Rengari Chawl, R. No.5 ] 1st floor, Dadasaheb Phalke ] Marg, Dadar, Mumbai 400 012 ] 2. The Presiding Officer, ] Fifth Labour Court, having ] his Court at New ] Administrative Building, ] Bandra (East), Mumbai 400051] 3. Shri P. K. Chavare, ] President, Industrial Court ] having his Court at New ] Administrative Building, ] Bandra (East), Mumbai 400051]..Respondents

2. The petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the Labour Court and Industrial Court, Mumbai, under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971.

4. The respondent No.1 was employed with the petitioner as a contractor. His death of birth is said to be 27.6.1951. The petitioner lodged a complaint to the police station in pursuance of which the respondent No.1 was arrested for theft. Thereafter from 29.6.1994 the petitioner did not allow him to report for duty. Criminal Complaint No. 294/P/1994 was decided by the Criminal Court on 12.8.1997. The Criminal Court acquitted the respondent No.1 for an offence punishable under Section 381 of I.P.C. He approached the petitioner for reinstatement but they refused. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1 issued a notice on 29.12.1997 apparently wrongly stating his age as 62 years. The

5. In the complaint before the Labour Court, the petitioner has contended that the respondent No.1 had tendered his resignation on 4.7.1994. According to them the respondent No.1 approached them, admitted his guilt, tendered his resignation and received certain amount of settlement. Therefore since that date there is no relationship of employer and employee. The Labour Court therefore perused the alleged letter of resignation and came to the conclusion that the letter and other accompanying documents are not in the handwriting of the respondent No.1. While doing so, the Labour Court admittedly fell into error in not complying with the provisions of Section 73 of the Evidence Act, which clearly contemplates that doubtful signatures must be compared with the specimen signatures of the person concerned, which are beyond doubt. Indeed, there is no other way signatures can be compared by a Court of Law. This is a serious infirmity on a crucial aspect of the matter. Both the learned counsel have fairly accepted that the comparison is not in accordance with the procedure contemplated under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act. In the circumstances, the finding of the

6. In the circumstances, the Judgment of the Labour Court is vitiated and is liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside. Consequently, the Judgment of the Industrial Court in Revision is also liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Labour Court for fresh decision in accordance with law. The Labour Court shall decide the matter not later than six months from the date parties appear before it. Parties are directed to appear before the Labour Court on 15.9.2008. The record and proceedings which are in this Court shall be transmitted

M/S. Oswal Books Manufacturing Depot v. Adam Noor Mohd. Khatri and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Oswal Books Manufacturing Depot v. Adam Noor Mohd. Khatri and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

union bank of india Vs officaial liquidator of m/s aldrich pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited Vs Triton Overwater Transport Agency Ltd. (in Liqn.)

Quantum Equipment Company Limited Vs Avi-Oil India (Pvt) Limited and Anr.

Bombay Oxygen Corpn. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Maharashtra General Kamgar Union and Anr.

Arjan Sadarangani Vs the Addl. Collector and Competent Authority Ulc Greater MUMBAI-3 and Others

Rajninath Shram Chipkar Vs Mumba Port Trust and Others