Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 487 (AP)

Modi Rubbers Ltd. , New Delhi v. K. V. D. Prasad

2000-07-14

V.V.S.RAO

body2000
V. V. S. RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is the respondent in i. D. No. 297 of 1994 filed by the first respondent herein on the file of the Labour court, Guntur. The petitioner raised a defence that the dispute is barred by the principle of res judicata as the same was already decided by the competent authority under the provisions of A. P. Shops and establishments Act, 1988 ( the Act ). The petitioner, therefore, filed an application being I. A. No. 186 of 2000 in I. D. No. 297 of 1994 praying the Labour Court to summon the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, vijayawada, the appellate authority under the provisions of Sec. 48 of the Act for production of documents. It was stated that when the principle of res judicata is raised, the petitioner herein may as well obtain certified copy of the order and proceed with the case and summoning of the Assistant commissioner is not necessary. The Labour court observed as follows:"according to the petitioner, the matter was decided by the Assistant commissioner of Labour as the appellate authority under A. P. Shops and Establishments Act and as such the said decision will amount to res judicata to the present proceedings. If the Assistant Commissioner of Labour has decided the issue as Appellate authority, the respondent management being a party to the said proceedings can obtain certified proceedings or the order passed by the assistant Commissioner of Labour. There is no necessity to summon the entire file of the said proceedings for deciding the issue of res judicata in this petition. " ( 2 ) ASSAILING the order dated 3-5-2000 in i. A. No. 186 of 2000 in I. D. No. 297 of 1994, the present writ petition is filed. ( 3 ) SRI P. Prabhakara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the application was filed to summon the assistant Commissioner of Labour for production of a document including the minutes/proceedings in a Shops and establishments Case which are very much required and relevant for the purpose of enquiry in I. D. No. 297 of 1994. Therefore, according to him, it does not amount to summoning the Assistant Commissioner for production of a document and that the assistant Commissioner may as well depute one of his subordinates for production of the document. Therefore, according to him, it does not amount to summoning the Assistant Commissioner for production of a document and that the assistant Commissioner may as well depute one of his subordinates for production of the document. In view of this, it is contended that the Labour Court has committed a grave error in rejecting the LA. ( 4 ) EITHER for production of documents or for giving evidence as to passing judicial order, no person exercising judicial function or quasi judicial function shall be called by any other authority to give evidence as to the proceedings that take place before such judicial officer. It is well settled that the proceedings and Court records maintained in accordance with law are treated final and they are to be questioned or taken advantage of strictly in accordance with the principles of law. No Judge or no officer exercising judicial functions shall be compelled to give evidence except when such officer himself desires to give evidence in connection with some disciplinary proceedings. In Syed Yakoob vs. Radhakrishnan, it was held that the presiding Officer of the Tribunal in all matters of judicial review is only a formal party and the Tribunal is not expected to justify its order. In State of Maharashtra vs. R. S. Nayak, the Supreme Court categorically held that the proceedings and orders of the Court are presumed to be final and correct and it is for the party who impeaches them to proceed in accordance with law. In view of this, the order passed by the Labour Court, Guntur does not suffer from any infirmity. ( 5 ) FOR the above reasons, the writ petition is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 2,000. 00 to be paid by the petitioner to the first respondent herein.