M/S. KIRLOSKAR ELECTRIC COMPANY LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS COMPANY SECRETARY Vs. T. NARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W .P. No. 16566/2008 is preferred by the management, while WP No. 12709/2007 is preferred by the workman calling in question the award dated 24.04.2007, Annexure -C of the Labour Court Bangalore, modifying the order dated 26.10.1996 of dismissal to one of termination and directing release of service benefits inclusive of retrenchment compensation with interest at 12% per annum from 26.10.1996. The management alleges that the award is unsustainable, in the light of the fact that the order dated 14.03.2006 rejecting application filed on 06.02.2006 for recalling workman examined as W.W. 1 to obtain specimen signature, writings, token number etc., is illegal, while the workman's challenge to the award is insofar as modifying the order of dismissal to termination without extending the benefit of re -instatement and back -wages. In the course of proceeding before the Labour Court, the management while cross -examining the workman, regard being had to the denial of signatures on Exs. M.5, 6, 8, 16 and 19 filed an application for opinion of the handwriting expert over the admitted and disputed signatures. The Forensic Science Laboratory, in its letter dated 01.08.2005 requested the Labour Court to obtain specimen signature, writing and token number of the workman on atleast six sheets of paper for proper examination and furnishing an opinion. At that juncture, the management is said to have filed an interlocutory application on 06.02.2006 to recall WW -1/workman for the purpose of obtaining specimen signature, wilting, token number etc. That application was opposed following which the Labour Court, by order dated 14.03.2006 opined that no purpose would be served by taking signature of workman when he knows fully well that his writing should be sent to the handwriting expert should tally with disputed documents and therefore, it was not expedient for adjudication of the dispute and accordingly, rejected the application. It is there afterwards that the Labour Court passed the award recording a finding of fact that the misconduct against workman was not proved, nevertheless, interfered with the quantum of punishment to modify the order of dismissal to one of termination from service.

(2.) THE management asserted that the workman made confessional statement over the charge alleged and had obtained the same in writing under his signature which was disputed by the workman. Therefore, management thought fit to file an application to send the admitted signature on documents presented and the disputed signature of the workman in the confessional statement and other documents for expert's opinion which was allowed at the first instance by the Labour Court. Very strangely, the Labour Court having noticed the reply of the Director of Forensic Science Laboratory that what was submitted as admitted and disputed signature was insufficient, but require some more admitted signatures to be obtained on six sheets of papers for proper examination and to furnish the opinion, in his letter dated 01.08.2005, rejected the application. If that is the requirement of the Forensic Science Laboratory, I fail to understand why the Presiding Officer should have rejected the application. In fact, it was the duty of the Presiding Office to have complied with the reasonable request of the Director of Forensic Science Laboratory so as to render his opinion and in the absence of such reasons what could be said about the order is it has denied justice. The basic tenets of law must be understood first before rendering judgment and causing serious injustice to the parties.