Shri. Subhash Annappa Shinde v. Sound Casting

1/3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7057 OF 2016 Shri Subhash Annappa Shinde ...

Petitioner

Versus

Sound Casting ...

Respondent .....

Mr. Dilip B. Shinde for the Petitioner.

Mr. Meelan Topkar for the Respondent.

.....

CORAM : S.C.GUPTE, J.

DATE : 1 AUGUST 2018 P.C. :

.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Rule. Rule taken up forthwith for hearing by consent of learned counsel for the parties.

This petition challenges an order passed by the Labour Court at Kolhapur on a miscellaneous application, being Exhibit 'U-27,' under a reference made to it (Reference No.76 of 2008). One of the controversies before the Labour Court in the reference is of the relationship of employee and employer between the parties. It is the case of the Respondentmanagement that the Petitioner was an employee of a contractor appointed by them, namely, Skylark Services. In support of their case, the management had relied on wage registers of Skylark Services, on which, according to the management, signatures of the Petitioner are reflected. It is the Petitioner's case, on the other hand, that these signatures do not

2/3 belong to him. He, accordingly, applied for examination of these signatures through Handwriting Expert. That was his miscellaneous application under Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act. The impugned order of the Labour Court on this misc. application discloses a complete non-application of mind. The application is rejected purportedly on the footing that merely because first party company has taken a defence that second party is not its employee, it is not sufficient to deny the relationship of employer and employee, for whatever it means. The question before the Labour Court in the reference was whether the signatures claimed to be of the employee in fact belong to him. The legal argument, whether any particular defence would or would not be sufficient to deny relationship, has no bearing on this issue.

The signatures themselves prima facie disclose certain disparities and would in fact need to be examined. The request for referring them to handwriting expert, thus, appears to be clearly in order, though it is the case of the company in the present case that the employee's signatures are contained in various documents, which also may be referred to the handwriting expert likewise for examination. There is no difficulty for such examination.

In the premises, Rule is made absolute and the writ petition is allowed by quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 9 September 2014 passed by the Labour Court No.1, Kolhapur and allowing the Petitioner's application, being Exhibit 'U-27'. It is also directed that along with documents set out by the Petitioner in Exhibit 'U-27', other documents indicated by the Respondent-company may also be sent likewise to the handwriting expert for his examination. The examination costs for the documents referred to in Exhibit 'U-27' shall be borne by the Petitioner.

3/3 So far as other documents required by the Respondent-company are concerned, the costs for their examination shall be borne by it. (S.C. GUPTE, J.)