Allowed

Jaipur Central Co. Operative Bank v. Rakesh Kumar Sharma andORS

Rajasthan HC6 May 2015CW/2599/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allowed a writ petition challenging a Labour Court decision that rejected an application to summon a witness. The High Court held that the Labour Court must exercise its statutory powers to summon the witness and produce documents to determine the central issue of employment. The writ was allowed, the impugned order set aside, and the witness summoned.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition allowed; the order dated 12.2.2015 passed by the Labour Court set aside; the Labour Court directed to summon the President of the Rajasthan Ex-Serviceman Welfare Cooperative Society

Labour Court NO.1, Jaipur whereby the application at its instance for summoning the President of the Rajasthan Ex-Serviceman Welfare Cooperative Society Limited as a witness has been rejected inter-alia on the ground that this Court vide order dated 21.8.2014 in S.B Civil Writ Petition No. 8634/2014 (Rakesh Kumar Sharma v. The Jaipur Central Cooperative Bank Limited & Another) had directed that case No. LCR 89/2001 titled as Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs. The Jaipur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. & Anr. be decided within a period of six months and also for the reason that the witness sought to be summoned as a defendant before the Labour

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue before the Labour Court is with regard to the respondent No.1 workman Rakesh Kumar Sharma being an employee of the Central Cooperative Bank Limited or the Rajasthan Ex-Serviceman Welfare Cooperative Society Limited. It has been submitted that in the course of his cross-examination before the Labour Court the respondent No.1 workman Rakesh Kumar Sharma had admitted receipt of certain amounts from the Rajasthan Ex- Serviceman Welfare Cooperative Society Limited but had denied the petitioner Management's documents No. 2 and 3 to that effect. It has been submitted that in that state of affairs it was necessary for summoning the President of the Rajasthan Ex- Serviceman Welfare Cooperative Society Limited with the requisite record qua the workman for determining the central question as to whether he was an employee of the

Rajasthan Ex-Serviceman Welfare Cooperative Society Limited. It has been submitted that sub-section 3 of Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1947') inter-alia provides that every Labour Court shall have the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, when trying a suit inter-alia for examining a person on oath and for production of documents etc. It has been submitted that Rule 17 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter 'the Rules of 1957') provides that the summons issued by the Labour Court should be in Form D and may require any person to produce before it any books, papers or other documents and things etc. which are in his possession or control and which has/have any relation to the matter under investigation or adjudication by the Labour Court and which the Labour Court thinks necessary for the purposesofsuchinvestigationor adjudication.

drawn to Form-D appended to the Rules of 1957 which relates to summoning of a person before the Labour Court to answer material questions relating to a dispute before the Court and to produce where required relevant books, papers and documents which is/are under his control relating to the matter under adjudication before the Labour Court. Counsel submits that the Labour Court by the impugned order dated 12.2.2015 has over-looked its enabling powers and the fact that the summoning of the President of the Rajasthan Ex-Serviceman Welfare Cooperative Society Limited with records relating to the workman in his possession was extremely relevant for the determination of the question to whose employee Rakesh Kumar Sharma- the workman was i.e. Central Cooperative Bank Limited or the Rajasthan Ex-Serviceman Welfare Cooperative Society Limited.

Mr. S.K. Singodiya appearing for the respondent No.1 submits that the case before the Labour Court relates to the year 2011. It has been submitted that he has no objections to the President of the Rajasthan Ex-

Serviceman Welfare Cooperative Society Limited being summoned as a witness in the exercise of the powers under section 11 of the Act of 1947 and Rule 17 of the Rules of 1957 but it may be directed that the entire exercise be completed within a period of eight weeks and the reference before the Labour Court be expeditiously decided.

Having heard the parties and taking into consideration the state of law and the dispute before the Labour Court inter-alia as to whether the respondent No.1 workman Rakesh Kumar Sharma was an employee of the Central Cooperative Bank Limited or the Rajasthan Ex- Serviceman Welfare Cooperative Society Limited, I would allow the writ petition and set aside the order dated 12.2.2015 passed by the Labour Court No.1, Jaipur dismissing the petitioner's application for summoning as witness the President of the Rajasthan Ex- Serviceman Welfare Cooperative Society Limited. The Labour Court is consequently required to invoke its power under section 11 of the Act of 1947 and Rule 17 of the Rules of 1957 and summon the President of the

Rajasthan Ex-Serviceman Welfare Cooperative Society Limited for answering all relevant questions and producing document/s in his possession which have a bearing on the issue pending before the Labour Court, Jaipur.

Jaipur Central Co. Operative Bank v. Rakesh Kumar Sharma andORS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaipur Central Co. Operative Bank v. Rakesh Kumar Sharma andORS

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

Mukesh Kumar Vs State Panchyati Raj Dep Ors.

Nisar Ahmad Vs State Animal and Husbsndry Depors

Rajendra Kumar Sharma Vs R S R T C and Ors.

Ashok Kumar Vs Director Elementary Edu Ors.

Mukesh Kumar Gurjar Vs State Home Departmentors

Sandhya Arya Vs R C S a Tribunal and Ors.