- (1.) A challenge has been thrown by the petitioners i.e. Employees' Union as regards the order passed by the First Industrial Tribunal on 29th June, 2004, allowing the management to file a document proposed to be relied upon. The contention of the writ petitioners is that such prayer was rejected on 1st December, 2003 and no challenge had been thrown in respect of such order. According to the petitioners, a Tribunal cannot be behaved like a post box. It has to apply its own mind before allowing any document to be produced in course of the proceeding for the purpose of evaluating the evidentiary value of the same. In this case, when the production of such document once refused, the same cannot be allowed afresh by the Tribunal. According to me, there are many ways of producing documents in the Court or in the Tribunal. Firstly, there should be formal disclosure of documents by both the parties and inspection in connection thereto. Secondly, during the pendency of the proceeding disclosure under the covering letter of one calling upon the other to inspect the same. Thirdly, as a surprise during the course of hearing. It is well-settled that any contesting party can confront with any of the documents at the time of cross- examination. But there are checks and balances of the Courts/Tribunal as a matter of practice of the Court/Tribunal which is also law. Such checks and balances are as follows : (a) Confrontation will not be allowed generally in respect of undisclosed documents as a surprise; (b) Disclosure will necessarily be made before the evidence being closed. The only exception lies with public document which is universally disclosed for all practical purposes. In the instant case, the concerned document is a public document being an award and publication of the award. Therefore, such publication of document can be brought to the notice of the Court or Tribunal at any point of time. There cannot be any bar. It is misfortune that in the earlier occasion the Tribunal failed to follow the principle applicable to public document/s and proceeded on a wrong premises as to whether such award has a binding effect on the Tribunal or not. Such part is open for the Tribunal to consider when one is interested to produce certain documents. But that does not necessarily mean it will be implied beforehand or be pre-judged at the time of production by way of refusal.
(2.) It has been contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the management that the earlier application was made for the purpose of recalling of the workman witness and the present application is for the purpose of relying upon the list of documents.
(3.) However, the Tribunal expressed its mind in both the occasions. According to me, making of the subsequent application cannot be hit by the principle of constructive resjudicata. Assuming for the moment, there is no such application available before the Court or the Tribunal, yet, any document can be looked into by the Court/Tribunal as to whether the same is public document or not upon being called upon by any of the parties contesting before it. Whether such public document will have any binding effect or not is secondary which will be ultimately decided by the Tribunal at the relevant point of time. But the same cannot be pre-judged by disallowing from producing such document. Since this Court, prima facie, finds that certified copy of the deposition of the management before the Industrial Tribunal was in the list of documents produced before the Tribunal, there is no bar for the management to produce the ultimate result of such proceeding i.e. the award and the publication of the award. Therefore, in that case the document cannot be taken as surprise. The Court or the Tribunal cannot be restrained from looking into it. Moreover the Rule 15 of the West Bengal Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958, says that a Board, Court, Labour Court or Tribunal or an Arbitrator may accept, admit or call for evidence at any stage of the proceedings before it/him and in such manner as it/he may think fit. Therefore, the rule is inbuilt. But it will be applied with great caution when disclosure and inspection applying general Rule 20C is already made and evidence is closed. Possibly, the learned Counsel appearing for the management wanted to say that by virtue of such rule a workman witness can be recalled. Therefore, the examination of the witness of the workmen cannot be said to be closed. In fact, the witness action of the workmen is closed and one of the witness/ management has been examined. But until and unless the evidence is entirely closed, test of veracity of the documents is open for the Court or Tribunal at any stage of the proceeding. That apart, under law of evidence re-examination is also permissible. But only caution is such mechanism will be sparingly used under the appropriate circumstances. Therefore, when the stage of evidence is open before the Tribunal, the deposit of any public document having face value should not be disallowed in the manner as proposed. This Court has considered only upto that point. If necessary, the parties are at liberty to examine the witness by allowing the public document and its evidentiary value. Further point is open for the Tribunal to consider in either ways.;