Challenge to a Labour Court order permitting the Management to adduce evidence. Court held that the restriction on adducing evidence at a later stage applies only when such evidence is sought as an alternative plea to a domestic enquiry. Since no domestic enquiry was relied upon, the order was upheld and writ petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/20
GAHC010116162016
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/4615/2016
GEETARTHA PATHAK
EX-ASSTT. EDITOR ASSAM BANI SINCE TERMINATED,UNIT-5, MIG-B-3, HENGRABARI HOUSING COLONY, GHY-6, DIST- KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REP. BY THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER CUM CONCILIATION OFFICER, KAMRUP METRO, DEPTT. OF LABOUR, GOVT. OF ASSAM, GUWAHATI NEAR GURU NANAK SCHOOL, SARAB BHATTI, GUWAHATI
2:THE MANAGEMENT OF ASSAM BANI and ASSAM TRIBUNE GROUP REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE ASSAM BANI ASSAM TRIBUNE GROUP and NEWS PAPERS TRIBUNE BUILDING GHY-3 DIST- KAMRUP METRO ASSA
For the Petitioner (s) : Sr. P. K. Roy, Sr. Advocate
Ms. A. Chakraborty, Advocate
For the Respondent (s) : Mr. K. Gogoi,
Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate
Mr. J. K. Sharma, Advocate
Page No.# 2/20
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
Date of Hearing : 12.08.2025
Date of Judgment : 12.08.2025
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. P. K. Roy, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. A. Chakraborty, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. Mr. K. Gogoi, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and Mr. J. K. Sharma, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent No.2.
Page No.# 3/20
newspaper “Asam Bani” which was a unit of the Assam Tribune Group of Newspapers w.e.f. 01.01.1987 on the basis of an order issued on 22.01.1987. On 04.06.2014, a show cause notice was issued by the Editor of “Asam Bani” alleging that the Petitioner was not found available during the official duty hours from 31.05.2014 to 03.06.2014 after signing the Attendance Register. The Petitioner claims that he had submitted his reply on 07.06.2014 stating that he was very much present on those days and did his assigned jobs.
Page No.# 4/20
themselves put the designation as Editor.
Page No.# 5/20
without following the manner and procedure laid down in the Standing Order and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice terminated the services of the Petitioner without holding any domestic enquiry by issuing an order dated 19.06.2014.
Page No.# 6/20
workman within the meaning of the Act of 1947.
(i) Whether the Management of Asam Bani and Assam Tribune Group were justified in terminating the service of Shri Geetartha Pathak, Assistant Editor, Asam Bani by virtue of the order dated 19.06.2014?
(ii) Whether Shri Geetartha Pathak is entitled to reinstatement in his service or to any other relief in lieu thereof?
Page No.# 7/20
provided opportunity to the Petitioner to adduce evidence. The Petitioner adduced his evidence by filing the examination-in-chief on 15.12.2015 and the cross-examination of the Petitioner was concluded on 19.04.2016.
“Both sides filed hazira. WW1 is present for being cross-examined and accordingly he is so cross-examined and discharge. Heard. Workman side evidence closed as desired. Fixed 6.5.16 for filing evidence on affidavit by the management”.
Page No.# 8/20
No.14 was filed.
CONTENTIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES
Page No.# 9/20
application for that purpose without unreasonable delay. He submitted that the Management of the Respondent No.2 in its written statement did not exercise the right by mentioning that they would like to adduce evidence, and as such, at a later stage, the Management of the Respondent No.2 cannot be allowed to file an application seeking permission to adduce evidence. The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that this principle had been declared by the Supreme Court taking a holistic view of the matter in as much as if there is a delay in disposal of the proceedings before the learned Labour Court, it may lead to wrecking the morale of the workman and compel him to surrender which he may not otherwise do. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner further submitted that the law so declared in the case of Shambhu Nath Goyal (supra) had been confirmed by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vs. Lakshmidevamma (Smt) and Another , reported in (2001) 5 SCC 433 wherein the Supreme Court observed that the law declared in the case of Shambhu Nath Goyal (supra) being a long standing decision, the same is required to be approved on the principles of stare decisis. The learned Senior Counsel, however, submitted that taking into account the judgment in the case of Cooper
Page No.# 10/20
Engineering Limited vs. Shri P.P. Mundhe , reported in (1975) 2 SCC 661 and more particularly paragraph No.22, he would not insist on the legality of the order dated 25.07.2016 for not framing the preliminary issue, and more so, when the learned Labour Court had observed in the impugned order that the said would be decided along with the main issues.
ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION.
Page No.# 11/20
the parties thereupon filed their additional written statements. It is pertinent however to observe that the Respondent No.2 in its written statement did not contend that there was a domestic enquiry conducted. The Respondent No.2 also did not request in the written statement to try the validity of the domestic enquiry as a preliminary issue, rather, it was the Petitioner who sought for framing of a preliminary issue vide the petition No.480/16. It is also very pertinent to observe that after the Petitioner had adduced his evidence and he was cross-examined, the learned Labour Court passed an order dated 19.04.2016 fixing 06.05.2016 for filing evidence on affidavit of the Management. The record further reveals that the examination-in-chief of 14 Management witnesses were submitted by way of an affidavit and it was at the time when the proceedings were fixed for cross-examination of the Management witnesses, the applications were filed by the Petitioner which resulted in passing of the impugned order dated 25.07.2016.
Page No.# 12/20
was delivered by a Bench comprising of three Hon’ble Judges of the Supreme Court and the majority opinion was rendered by His Lordship A. Varadarajan, J. (as His Lordship then was). In the said case, before the Supreme Court, the facts as would appear was that pursuant to an industrial dispute, Reference was made by the Central Government to the Industrial Tribunal, Chandigarh. The Management filed the written statement on 12.08.1970 contending that the dispute was not an industrial dispute. The contention found favour with the learned Tribunal which led to filing of a proceeding before the Supreme Court by the workman which was allowed holding that it was an industrial dispute and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for expeditious disposal. In the said proceedings, upon being remanded, the learned Tribunal framed two issues. One pertained to whether there was a fair and proper enquiry by the domestic Tribunal and the second issue was whether the dismissal of the workman was justified. The Tribunal opined that the enquiry was vitiated and not in accordance to the principles of natural justice. The Management thereupon moved an application for an opportunity to be given to lead evidence in support of the charges framed against the workman in the event the Tribunal holding against it on the first question relating to the conduct of the domestic enquiry. The Tribunal rejected the said application and thereupon
Page No.# 13/20
held that the dismissal of the workman was not justified and directed reinstatement.
It is in the backdrop of those facts, the Supreme Court observed at paragraph No.16 that if the Management chooses to exercise its right to adduce evidence, it must make up its mind at the earliest stage and file the application for that purpose without unreasonable delay. It was observed that when the question arises in a Reference under Section 10 of the Act of 1947, after the workman has been punished pursuant to a finding of guilt recorded against him in the domestic enquiry, there is no question of the Management filing any application for permission to lead further evidence in support of the charge or charges framed against the workman, for the defect in the domestic enquiry being pointed out by the workman in his written statement filed by the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal after the reference has been received and the Management has the opportunity to look into that statement before it files its written statement of defence in the enquiry before the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal and could make the request for opportunity in the written statement itself. It was observed that if the Management did not choose to do so at that stage, it cannot be allowed to do at any later stage of the proceedings by filing an application for the purpose which may result in delay which
Page No.# 14/20
may lead to wrecking the morale of the workman and compel him to surrender which he may not otherwise so. Paragraph No.16 of the said judgment being relevant is reproduced herein under:-
Page No.# 15/20
the management has the opportunity to look into that statement before it files its written statement of defence in the enquiry before the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal and could make the request for the opportunity in the written statement itself. If it does not choose to do so at that stage it cannot be allowed to do it at any later stage of the proceedings by filing any application for the purpose which may result in delay which may lead to wrecking the morale of the workman and compel him to surrender which he may not otherwise do.”
Page No.# 16/20
rendered by His Lordship N. Santosh Hegde, J., it was observed at paragraph No.17 of the report that the judgment in the case of Shambhu Nath Goyal (supra) need not be varied as it was just and fair in as much as there can be no complaint from the Management side for this procedure because this opportunity of leading evidence is being sought by the Management only as an alternative plea and not as an admission of illegality in the domestic enquiry. Paragraph No.17 of the said judgment being relevant is reproduced herein under:-
“ 17. Keeping in mind the object of providing an opportunity to the management to adduce evidence before the Tribunal/Labour Court, we are of the opinion that the directions issued by this Court in Shambhu Nath Goyal case need not be varied, being just and fair. There can be no complaint from the management side for this procedure because this opportunity of leading evidence is being sought by the management only as an alternative plea and not as an admission of illegality in its domestic enquiry. At the same time, it is also of advantage to the workmen inasmuch as they will be put to notice of the fact that the management is likely to adduce fresh evidence, hence, they can keep their rebuttal or other evidence ready. This procedure also eliminates the likely delay in permitting the management to make belated application whereby the proceedings before the Labour Court/Tribunal could get prolonged. In our opinion, the procedure laid down in Shambhu Nath Goyal case1 is just and fair.”
Page No.# 17/20
“ 45. It is consistently held and accepted that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to the proceedings before the Labour
Page No.# 18/20
Court/Tribunal but essentially the rules of natural justice are to be observed in such proceedings. Labour Courts/Tribunals have the power to call for any evidence at any stage of the proceedings if the facts and circumstances of the case demand the same to meet the ends of justice in a given situation. We reiterate that in order to avoid unnecessary delay and multiplicity of proceedings, the management has to seek leave of the court/tribunal in the written statement itself to lead additional evidence to support its action in the alternative and without prejudice to its rights and contentions. But this should not be understood as placing fetters on the powers of the court/tribunal requiring or directing parties to lead additional evidence including production of documents at any stage of the proceedings before they are concluded if on facts and circumstances of the case it is deemed just and necessary in the interest of justice.”
Page No.# 19/20
the principles of law in the case of Shambhu Nath Goyal (supra) as well as Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (supra) cannot be applied to the facts of the instant case in as much as the Management of the Respondent No.2 neither relied upon any domestic enquiry nor sought for filing of evidence as an alternative. In this regard, this Court finds it very pertinent to take note of a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Regional Manager & Another vs. Pawan Kumar Dubey , reported in (1976) 3 SCC 334 wherein the Supreme Court observed that one additional or a different fact can make a world of a difference between conclusions in two cases even when the same principles are applied in each case to the similar facts.
Page No.# 20/20
Labour Court on 19.09.2025 for further proceedings in Reference Case No.3/2015.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Management could adduce evidence when it did not take a plea in the written statement.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shambhu Nath Goyal vs. Bank of Baroda and OthersDistinguished¶76
Shambhu Nath Goyal vs. Bank of Baroda and Others , reported in (1983) 4 SCC 491 · Who else cites this
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vs. Lakshmidevamma (Smt) and AnotherDistinguished¶76
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vs. Lakshmidevamma (Smt) and Another , reported in (2001) 5 SCC 433 · Who else cites this
Cooper Engineering Limited vs. Shri P.P. MundheReferred¶58
Cooper Engineering Limited vs. Shri P.P. Mundhe , reported in (1975) 2 SCC 661 · Who else cites this
Central Council For Research In Ayurvedic Sciences & Another vs. Bikartan Das & OthersReferred¶59
Central Council For Research In Ayurvedic Sciences & Another vs. Bikartan Das & Others , reported in (2023) 16 SCC 462 · Who else cites this
Regional Manager & Another vs. Pawan Kumar DubeyReferred¶90
Regional Manager & Another vs. Pawan Kumar Dubey , reported in (1976) 3 SCC 334 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
GEETARTHA PATHAK
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
Devashis Baruah
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
