BHARAT ELECTRONICS LIMITED Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL IN KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter coming for orders is disposed of after hearing the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The short question which falls for determination of this Court is whether the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore erred in law in refusing to permit the petitioner, B E.L., to treat one of its witnesses as hostile and subject him to cross examination. The matter arose before the Tribunal in the following circumstances. During the pendency of a dispute the respondent workman was removed from service after holding a domestic enquiry. Therefore, an application under Sec. 33 (2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act was preferred by the Management. In that proceeding the Tribunal formed the opinion on a preliminary finding that the domestic enquiry held was not legal and proper. Ordinarily in my view the matter should have been concluded there holding that the approval cannot be granted. if the domestic enquiry was bad question of granting approval would not arise. Unfortunately, the proceedings under Sec. 33(2)(b) have been equated with the proceedings under Sec. 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act. This error must be rectified at some point of time or the other. In view of the fact that this Court had already held the domestic enquiry was not proper in the earlier writ petition and that has been affirmed by this Court in a writ appeal, the question of according approval would not arise notwithstanding the fact that the Management was not permitted to treat one of its witnesses as a hostile witness.

(3.) By way of caution I must add that right to treat one's own witness hostile is not a substantive statutory right. It is a procedural right conferred by the Court recording the evidence and having regard to the circumstances and the demenor of the witnesses, the court may in its discretion come to conclusion that a witness is hostile or not. That discretion once exercised by the Trial Court may not be interfered with by the Superior Court either exercising Appellate or other extraordinary jurisdiction. This Court has not even seen the witness produced before the Court. I have already expressed this view in a Regular First Appeal. In this view of the matter petition is rejected.