Short Note : 1. Respondent No 3, was employed in the undertaking since the year 1952, and at the relevant and material time, working as, a gate-keeper. By an order dated 23rd May 1966, he was transferred to the Sizing Department and ultimately was dismissed from service. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order respondent No.3 filed an application before the Labour Court, Indore, under section 31 (3) read with section 61 of the M.P Industrial Relations Act, 1960. The Labour Court dismissed the application By the impugned order, the learned president of the Industrial Court set aside the order passed by the Labour Court and directed the petitioner to pay one year's wages as compensation to respondent No.3 for his removal from service. 2. Held: So far as the question of section 145 of the Evidence Act is concerned, the Industrial Court observed that the Labour Court erred in law in taking into consideration the statement made in cross-examination by P.W. 2 Nathulal, who was examined by respondent No.3 to prove that Ex. P-2, an order purporting to grant additional emoluments to the petitioner, was issued by one Ramdas, the Managing Director of the company, that the document Ex. P-2 did not bear signature of any person. In the opinion of the Industrial Court, the said statement of P.W. 2 Nathulal in cross-examination could not be taken into consideration as his attention was not invited to his statement in examination-in-chief wherein he had' deposed that the document Ex. P-2 was signed by Ramdas. It is difficult to appreciate the view of the Industrial Court that if a witness, in the course of his cross-examination, makes a statement which is contradictory to that made by him in his examination-in-law, the statement made in cross-examination could not be made use of unless the attention of the witness was drawn to the earlier statement made by him in examination-in-chief. This Court should have thought that it was obvious from the language of section 145 of the Evidence Act that the provisions of that section are attracted where a witness is contradicted by reference to a previous statement made by hi n in writing, and therefore, the statement, by which it is sought to contradict a witness, must have been made before the evidence in Court is given. The Industrial Court, therefore, has misread the provisions of section 145 of the Evidence Act and committed an error of law apparent on the face of the record in holding that the Labour Court had failed to take into consideration the provisions of section 145 of the Evidence Act before relying on the Staten ents made by P. W. 2 Nathulal in his cross-examination. It appears that the Industrial Court allowed respondent No.3 to produce another document, purporting to be the original of Ex. P-2 which bore the signature of Ramdas. The Industrial Court did not have any jurisdiction, in the circumstances of the case, to admit any document and rely upon it when the execution of that document was not proved. The burden to prove the execution of the document produced before the Industrial Court, even assuming that the document could be admitted in evidence at that stage, was on respondent No.3, and if he was reluctant to adduce evidence to prove that document, one fails to understand as to how that document could be relied upon by the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court thus adopted a procedure which is not sanctioned by law. By interferring with the order passed by the Labour Court in exercise of its revisional powers under section 66 of the Act, which are analogous to section 115 CPC on grounds which cannot be sustained in law, the Industrial Court has committed an error of law apparent on the face of the record. Petition allowed.