B.L.Yadav, J. - (1.) The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 2nd March, 1988 (Annexure 11 to the petition), directing that the employer can put such questions in cross-examination which are germane to the controversy and which have already been taken in the pleadings and not beyond that.
(2.) The factual matrics are these. A complaint was filed by the workman concerned under Section 6(f) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1967, (for short 'the Act'), alleging that he has been dismissed on the charges framed, and on that, notices were issued to the petitioner Corporation, which has filed objection. On behalf of the petitioner 5 witnesses were examined, whereas on behalf of complainant M.P. Singh, respondent No. 2, appeared and made his statement in the examination-in-chief. He was called for cross-examination by the petitioner on 2nd March, 1988 on the points averred by him in his affidavit. The questions in the cross-examination were put on behalf of the petitioner not in respect of the charges framed or the controversy germane to the dispute under Section 6(f) of the Act, rather it was directed in respect of initial appointment of respondent No. 2, when he has actually stated that he was appointed as a handicapped person. The cross-examination about the nature of employment at the intital stage was not allowed by respondent No. 1. Hence an application was filed by the petitioner and on that application the impugned order was passed indicating that only such questions can be put in the cross-examination which were germane to the charges and not about the matters pertaining to initial stage of appointment of respondent No. 2.
(3.) Sri J.N. Tewari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, urged that by not permitting the cross-examination on the points sought on behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner was deprived of the opportunity of hearing, and thus the principles of natural justice were violated. Reliance was placed mainly on State of Kerala v. K.T. Shaduli Grocery Dealer (AIR) 1977 S.C. 1627, and Shankar Chakravarty v. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd and Anr. (1979-II-LLJ-194).;