Allowed

M/S Dabur India Limited v. Deepak Kumar Joshi

Uttarakhand HC5 Sept 2019WPMS/2667/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the employer's writ petition against an order summoning its Unit Head as a witness for the opposite party. The Court quashed the summoning and the consequent bailable warrant, citing legal principles that forbid summoning opposite parties as witnesses to prevent self-cross-examination.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 21.02.2019 set-aside to the extent of summoning the Unit Head; bailable warrant dated 01.08.2019 set aside.

M/S Dabur India Limited Vs Deepak Kumar… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Uttarakhand HC (2019)

¶1

WPMS No. 2667 of 2019 Hon’ble Manoj K. Tiwari, J.

¶2

Heard Mr. T.A. Khan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Aditya Kumar Arya, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶3

This is employer’s writ petition against the orders dated 21.02.2019 and 01.08.2019 passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Adjudication Case No. 30 of 2011.

¶4

Pursuant to an industrial dispute raised by the respondent, following reference was referred to the Labour Court Kashipur for adjudication:-

¶5

“Whether termination of services of workman Mr. Deepak Kumar Joshi, S/o Shrish Chandra Joshi, R/o Village and Post Haripura, Tehsild Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar by the employer w.e.f. 06.03.2010 is legal or justified? If not, then what relief the workman is entitled to alongwith which particulars.”

¶6

After exchange of pleadings, the workman (respondent herein) moved an application before the Labour Court to summon Mr. Govind Reddy, Unit Head of the petitioner as witness, besides the officials in the Office of Assistant Labour Commissioner and Deputy Labour Commissioner.

¶7

Learned Labour Court allowed the said application vide order dated 21.02.2019. Thus, feeling aggrieved, the employer has approached this Court against summoning of its Unit Head as witness and he is not aggrieved by that part of the order, whereby officials of Labour Department have been summoned.

¶8

A plaintiff cannot normally compel the defendant to appear before the Court as a witness. The practice of citing the opposite party as a witness has been condemned as an unapproved form of evidence. If such a practice is allowed, it would result in cross-examination by his own counsel. To illustrate, if the Unit Head of the petitioner is examined by the respondent’s counsel, the counsel of petitioner gets the opportunity to cross-examine his own client. This is an unwholesome practice.

¶9

Such a practice was condemned by the Privy Counsel in Kishori Lal v. Chunni Lal reported in 1908 SCC OnLine P.C. 21, where it was held:

¶10

“As to this last matter, it would appear from the judgment of the High Court that in India it is one of the artifices of a weak and somewhat paltry kind of advocacy for each litigant to cause his opponent to be summoned as a witness, with the design that each party shall be forced to produce the opponent so summoned as witness, and thus give the counsel for each litigant the opportunity of cross-examining his own client. It is a practice which their Lordships cannot help thinking all judicial tribunals ought to set themselves to render as abortive as it is objectionable. It ought never to be permitted in the result to embarrass judicial investigation as it has done in this instance.”

¶11

In Koshy Eapen v. Idikula Varghese (V T.L.T. 271) a Division Bench of the High Court of Travancore held that the practice of citing the opposite party as a witness, has to be condemned as an unapproved form of evidence.

¶12

Similar view was taken by Kerala High Court in Narayana Pillay v. Kallyani Amma (1963 KLT 537).

¶13

It is true that the Court is not powerless in summoning the opposite party if there are special reasons. No such reasons have been made out in the instant case to compel Unit Head of the petitioner to give evidence for and on behalf of the respondent.

¶14

In such view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 21.02.2019 is set-aside only to the extent of summoning of Unit Head of the petitioner. Other part of the order dated 21.02.2019 shall remain intact. Consequently, the order dated 01.08.2019, whereby bailable warrant was issued against Mr. Govind Reddy is also setaside.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Unit Head, Mr. Govind Reddy, will soon enter the witness box after close of workman evidence to prove the case of the employer. Thus, the respondent shall have the opportunity to cross-examine him.

¶16

(Manoj K. Tiwari, J.) Navin 05.09.2019

M/S Dabur India Limited v. Deepak Kumar Joshi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Dabur India Limited v. Deepak Kumar Joshi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajveer Singh Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Rakesh Aggarwal Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Vinod Kumar Vs Jai Raj

Sanjay Massey Vs Miss v. Sherring

H.s.madhukar Vs Arun Yeshwant Pathak

Bazpur Stone Crusher Pvt. Ltd. Vs Rahul and Another