2001 (5) TMI 985 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conflict between the judgments in Shambhu Nath Goyal vs. Bank of Baroda & Others and Rajendra Jha vs. Labour Court.
2. The stage at which the management can seek permission to adduce additional evidence in labor disputes.
3. The discretionary power of the Labour Court/Tribunal to allow additional evidence.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Conflict between Judgments:
The primary issue was whether there was a conflict between the judgments in Shambhu Nath Goyal vs. Bank of Baroda & Others and Rajendra Jha vs. Labour Court. The court noted that in Shambhu Nath Goyal, it was held that the employer must request to adduce additional evidence at the time of filing the statement of claim or written statement. In contrast, the decision in Rajendra Jha was based on the specific facts of that case, where the Labour Court allowed the employer to lead evidence after the domestic enquiry was found defective. The court concluded that there was no conflict between these judgments as Rajendra Jha did not lay down any principle contrary to Shambhu Nath Goyal.

2. Stage for Seeking Permission to Adduce Additional Evidence:
The court reviewed the procedural aspect of when the management can seek to adduce additional evidence. It noted the consistent view that the right to lead evidence is a procedural right to avoid delays and multiplicity of proceedings. The court cited various judgments, including Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. vs. Ludh Budh Singh and Cooper Engineering Limited vs. Sri P.P. Mundhe, which emphasized that the management should make such a request before the proceedings are closed. The court reaffirmed the principle from Shambhu Nath Goyal that the management must seek permission at the earliest stage, specifically in the written statement, to avoid delays and ensure fairness.

3. Discretionary Power of Labour Court/Tribunal:
The court also addressed the discretionary power of the Labour Court/Tribunal to allow additional evidence. It emphasized that while the management should ideally seek permission at the initial stages, the Labour Court/Tribunal retains the discretion to allow additional evidence at any stage if deemed necessary to meet the ends of justice. This discretion must be exercised judiciously, considering the facts and circumstances of each case.

Separate Judgments:
Judgment by N. Santosh Hegde:
Justice Hegde concluded that the law laid down in Shambhu Nath Goyal was correct and just, emphasizing the need for the management to seek permission at the earliest stage to prevent delays and ensure fairness. He upheld the dismissal of the appellant's writ petition as the management did not seek permission to lead evidence until after the Labour Court had held the domestic enquiry vitiated.

Judgment by Shivaraj V. Patil:
Justice Patil agreed with Justice Hegde's judgment but added that the Labour Court/Tribunal has the power to require or direct parties to produce evidence at any stage if necessary. This ensures that the principles of natural justice are observed, and the Labour Court/Tribunal can call for evidence to meet the ends of justice.

Judgment by Y.K. Sabharwal:
Justice Sabharwal disagreed with the rigid interpretation in Shambhu Nath Goyal, arguing that the discretion to allow additional evidence should lie with the Labour Court/Tribunal. He emphasized that the employer's request to adduce evidence should be considered on its merits, even if made after the initial stage, to avoid technicalities that could adversely affect the workman. However, he concurred with the dismissal of the appeal due to the long-standing nature of the case and the retirement of the employee.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the procedural requirement from Shambhu Nath Goyal that the management must seek permission to adduce additional evidence at the earliest stage, specifically in the written statement. However, it also recognized the discretionary power of the Labour Court/Tribunal to allow additional evidence at any stage if necessary to meet the ends of justice. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court's decision.