Allowed

P Naresh v. the Management of Skf India Ltd.

Karnataka HC12 Jan 2023WP/13575/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka modified a Labour Court order allowing a workman to file an affidavit to explain bank statement entries produced during trial, prohibiting statements on other matters and permitting employer cross-examination.

What did the court decide?

Certiorari issued quashing and modifying the Labour Court order to permit the petitioner to file an affidavit explaining bank statement entries only.

P Naresh Vs the Management of Skf India Ltd. — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 13575 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 13575 OF 2021 (L-TER)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

P NARESH S/O LATE SRI B N PUTTARAJU AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT NO.30, 2^ND CROSS, 3^RD BLOCK, DASAPPA LAYOUT, RAMAMURTHY NAGAR, BENGALURU-560016 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. V.S. NAIK., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE MANAGEMENT OF SKF INDIA LTD PLOT NO.2 BOMMASANDRA INDUSTRIAL AREA HOSUR ROAD BENGALURU-560099 REP BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER-HR

¶11

Digitally signed by POORNIMA SHIVANNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI. SOMASHEKAR., ADVOCATE)

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTIION QUASHING THE ORDER DTD.14.7.2021 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, BENGALURU ON I.A.NO.7 IN I.D.NO.37/2010, THE CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AT ANNEXURE-H TO THE EXTENT THE PETITIONER IS

¶15

¶16

WP No. 13575 of 2021

¶17

AGGRIEVED AND THE ORDER DATED 23.7.2021 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT BENGALURU ON I.A. NO.8 IN I.D.NO.37/2010, THE CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AT ANNEXURE-K SINCE THE LABOUR COURT HAS COMMITTEES SERIOUS ERRORS WHICH ARE APPARENT ON THE FACTS OF RECORDS AND ETC.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶21

a. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the order dated 14.07.2021 passed by the II Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru on I.A.No.7 in I.D.No.37 of 2010, the certified copy of which is produced and marked at Annexure-H to the extent the petitioner is aggrieved and the order dated 23.07.2021 passed by the II Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru on I.A.No.8 in I.D.No.37 of 2010, the certified copy of which is produced and marked at Annexure-K since the Labour Court has committed serious errors which are apparent on the fact of records.

¶22

b. Issue a writ in the nature of direction or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the II Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru to permit the petitioner to lead further evidence in examination-inchief as requested by the petitioner in I.A.No.7 dated 06.07.2021, the true copy of which is produced and marked at Annexure-F.

¶23

c. Grant such other relief as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.

¶24

¶25

WP No. 13575 of 2021

¶26

The Industrial Dispute No.37/2010 is pending between the petitioner-workman and respondentemployer as regards certain disputes. In the said proceeding when the petitioner was examined there were various questions put across as regards the amounts deposited and amounts withdrawn from his bank account in Yes Bank, Malleshwaram branch, as regards which the petitioner had stated that the he is unable to answer the same without looking at the Bank statement/pass book.

¶27

In view thereof an application came to be filed by the employer under Section 11(1) and (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [‘ID Act’ for short] for a direction to the workman to produce statement of his account maintained at Yes Bank from the date of opening of the account till date.

¶28

The workman also filed an application under Section 11 of the ID Act seeking a direction to lead further evidence by way of examination in chief and to

¶29

¶30

WP No. 13575 of 2021

¶31

produce the bank statement. The labour Court vide its order dated 14.07.2021 on IA-7 filed by the workman allowed the same permitting production of bank statement, but, however, rejected the request of the workman to reopen the case to adduce further chief examination. It is aggrieved by the same that the workman is before this Court contending that the application which had been filed ought to have been allowed in its entirety.

¶32

Si.V.S.Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the application as filed is to lead further evidence, as also for marking of the documents. He submits that while the document is marked, there would be certain explanation required to be given as regards the entries in the bank statement and it is for that limited purpose, the application in IA-7 had been filed. He further submits that the workman does not intend to make any statement in his

¶33

¶34

WP No. 13575 of 2021

¶35

deposition as regards any other matter other than that relating to entries in the bank statement.

¶36

Sri.S.N.Murthy, learned Senior counsel for the respondent would submit that the labour Court has rightly rejected the request for leading evidence inasmuch as there is a possibility of workman leading evidence in respect of matters other than the bank statement and thereby seeking to negate the answers obtained through cross-examination by the employer. He, therefore, submits that the order passed by the labour Court being proper and correct does not require any interference.

¶37

Heard Sri.V.S.Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.S.N.Murthy, learned Senior counsel for Sri.Somashekar, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused papers.

¶38

It is not in dispute that the workman has maintained account in Yes Bank. It is also not in dispute that at the time of cross-examination when certain questions

¶39

¶40

WP No. 13575 of 2021

¶41

were posed the Bank statement was not on record,

¶42

as such the workman had indicated that without looking into the bank statement/passbook, he is unable to answer. In that background both the employer and the workman had filed applications for production of the said bank statement. In the application filed by the Workman, the workman had sought for permission to lead further evidence along with production of the documents.

¶43

When any document is produced by a party, it is also required that the party be given an opportunity to explain the same. Mere production of document and mere marking of the document without explanation thereof would cause injustice to the party of marking

¶44

the document since he would only be left at the mercy of the cross examination to explain the contents of the document which is not permissible. It would have been a different matter if the document had been confronted, when the said

¶45

¶46

WP No. 13575 of 2021

¶47

document would have been marked as a document produced by the employer and ther workman would only have to answer the questions posed during cross-examination.

¶48

The apprehension on part of Sri.S.N.Murthy, learned Senior counsel is also justified inasmuch as the workman cannot be allowed to try and overcome the cross-examination in his affidavit in lieu of evidence to be filed. Hence, I pass the following:

¶49

ORDER

¶50

i. The writ petition is allowed. A certiorari is issued, the order dated 14.07.2021 passed by the II Addl. Labour Court, Bangalore, on IA-7 in ID No.37/2010 is modified permitting the petitioner to file his affidavit in lieu of evidence while marking the Bank statement limited to the extent of explaining the transactions/entries contained in the Bank statement.

¶51

ii. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not be entitled to make any statement in the additional affidavit in lieu of evidence beyond the Bank statement. If any such statement is made, the labour Court,

¶52

¶53

WP No. 13575 of 2021

¶54

would be at liberty to eschew the said statement.

¶55

iii. Needless to say that the respondentemployer is at liberty to cross-examine the workman on the contents and the explanation given by the petitioner on any of the transactions in the Bank statement.

¶56

iv. The statement of Sri.V.S.Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner shall cooperate with the labour Court for expeditious disposal of the matter without seeking for any further adjournment is placed on record. His further statement that the additional affidavit in lieu of evidence will be filed on the very next date of hearing before the labour Court is placed on record.

¶57

Sd/JUDGE

¶58

¶59

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32

P Naresh v. the Management of Skf India Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P Naresh v. the Management of Skf India Ltd.

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

B v Narayana Murthy Vs the State of Karnataka

Mahadev J Amarish Vs the State of Karnataka

Naryanappa Vs the State of Karnataka

The Divisional Controller Vs Sri S v Itnala

Abeed Baig Vs the Managing Director

M/S Talk of the Town Vs Mr a Dilli Babu