Soumitra Pal ( 1 ) THE petitioner, a subsidiary company of National Textile Corporation, has challenged the order No. 113 dated 24th March, 2005 passed by the learned Second Industrial Tribunal rejecting the application filed by the company praying to rely on some documents to substantiate their case. ( 2 ) APPEARING for the petitioner Mr. Arunabha Ghosh, learned advocate ably assisted by Mr. Soumya Majumder submitted that when enquiry is decided as a preliminary issue and the same is held to be bad, the employer can prove charges by leading evidence afresh before the tribunal in support of the charges. Since the Tribunal is hearing the case on merits and the employer has been called upon to prove the charges, the employer can rely on fresh materials. As evident from the order dated 11th february, 2005 the documents sought to be produced are relevant. If the documents are not allowed to be produced, then the hearing on merits before the Tribunal will be an idle formality and denial of justice because in the absence of those documents the employer will not be able to prove the charges. Reliance has been placed on the submission advanced on behalf of the workman, as recorded in the order itself, that the Tribunal; has the power to allow parties to rely upon documents and to submit fresh evidence. It was contended that under Rule 15 of the West Bengal Industrial Dispute rules, 1958 (for short 'the Rules') a Tribunal at any stage of the proceedings may admit or call for evidence. Moreover, since under Section 11 of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 the Tribunal has the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court, it could have compelled production of the material documents. It was stated that the company could not foresee at the stage of enquiry or at the stage of exchange of documents under Rule 20c of the Rules that the domestic enquiry would be vitiated for want of those documents. Distinguishing the judgment in Excel Firsts and Colours Ltd. reported in (2000)1 LLJ 1364 it was submitted it does not relate to a case where an enquiry has been vitiated and the employer has been called upon to prove the charges afresh before the Tribunal. Distinguishing the judgment in Excel Firsts and Colours Ltd. reported in (2000)1 LLJ 1364 it was submitted it does not relate to a case where an enquiry has been vitiated and the employer has been called upon to prove the charges afresh before the Tribunal. Since the documents have been found to be relevant, if the same are not admitted in evidence, the company runs the risk of suffering an adverse award as the Tribunal has held that the enquiry proceeding was invalid for want of those documents. Reliance was placed on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Divyash Pandit v. Management, NCCBM reported in (2005)2 SCC 686 and on a judgment of this Court in Alkem Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. Third Industrial Tribunal, West bengal and Ors. reported in (2001)1 Cal HN 171 in support of his contentions. ( 3 ) MR. Anant Shaw, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent workmen, submitted that the petitioner company by filing a writ petition had earlier challenged the order of the learned Tribunal for grant of interim relief. The said writ petition was dismissed with a direction upon the tribunal to expedite the hearing. An appeal was preferred. The Appeal Court rejected the application for stay. Till date the worker has not been paid interim relief and is suffering. The instant writ application is nothing but to delay the proceedings pending before the learned Tribunal. Moreover, since the State has not been made a party the writ petition should be dismissed for nonjoinder of the parties. On merits was submitted that under the provisions of Rule 20c, the list of documents were disclosed and exchanged. The list of documents as also the documents filed by the company did not contain any of the documents which the company now wants to add. Since those were in the possession of the company, there is no explanation in the petition why the said documents could not be disclosed. Submission was made that unlike Rule 15, Rule 20c is mandatory. The writ Court should not act as a court of appeal. It has only to see whether the learned Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction or not and whether the principles of natural justice have been followed. Submission was made that unlike Rule 15, Rule 20c is mandatory. The writ Court should not act as a court of appeal. It has only to see whether the learned Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction or not and whether the principles of natural justice have been followed. The Tribunal after giving ample opportunity to the parties has come to a conclusion that the company cannot be allowed to rely and or produce the documents when admittedly the documents were in the possession of the company. The learned Tribunal after considering the evidence and the matters on record came to a conclusion that the report and findings of the enquiry Officer were bad in law and unjustified. Now, the company in order to substantiate their actions cannot be allowed to produce those documents for the first time before the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal the mistake cannot be rectified by producing fresh documents after a period of five years. Reliance was placed on the judgements of the Apex Court in Cooper engineering Ltd. v. P. P. Mundhe, reported in (1975)2 LLJ 379 , D. P. Maheswari v. Delhi Administration, reported in (1983)2 LLJ 425 and Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi, reported in AIR 1978 SC 851 and the judgments of the Calcutta High Court in Sonodyne Television Co. Ltd. v. Employees Union, reported in (1997)1 Cal HN 218 and in Excel Frits and Colours ltd. (supra) in support of his contentions. ( 4 ) THE learned Advocates have filed their respective written notes of arguments which are on record. ( 5 ) THE question is whether the learned Tribunal was justified in rejecting the company's petition dated 12th March, 2003 praying for relying on some documents to substantiate their case afresh. ( 6 ) RULE 20c which is relied on by the respondent workman is as under:-"20c. Inspection of documents.- (1) Within 14 days from the date of filing of the written statement by the second party, the parties shall file a list disclosing the documents which are in their possession and power relating to the matter or matters in dispute and upon which they want to rely, and each party shall give a notice to the other of the date on which its list is filed. (2) Within 10 days from the date of filing its list of documents, such party shall furnish to the other copies of the documents disclosed in the lists except the original registers, books of accounts and such other documents as may be exempted by the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court, as the case may be. " ( 7 ) THUS, the Rule postulates that parties shall file a list disclosing the documents in their possession relating to the matters in dispute and upon which they want to rely within fourteen days from the date of filing of the written statement by the second party. ( 8 ) RULE 15 is extracted hereunder:-"15. Evidence.-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 such manner as it/he may think fit. " ( 9 ) A perusal of the Rule 15 shows that it confers power upon the tribunal to accept, admit or call for evidence "at any stage of the proceedings" in such manner as it may think fit. Even if Rule 20c lays down the time frame when the list of documents are to be filed and the copies of the documents are to be disclosed, yet the language of Rule 15 leaves no manner of doubt that its scope is wider. The words "at any stage of the proceedings" is a pointer to that direction. To subserve justice the Tribunal may accept, admit or call for evidence. If any evidence is found to be vital, the Tribunal has been conferred the power to "call for" it. It is all for an effective adjudication of an industrial dispute. However, the words "it/he may think fit" clothes the Tribunal with a discretionary power. A power which has to be applied judiciously not mechanically. In the instant case since there was no satisfactory explanation as to the failure of the petitioner to produce the documents at the discovery stage discretion was not exercised and the petition was rejected. In rejecting the petition, the Tribunal had taken too technical a view since it was contended on behalf of the workman that the "tribunal has the power to allow parties to rely upon documents and to give fresh evidence". In rejecting the petition, the Tribunal had taken too technical a view since it was contended on behalf of the workman that the "tribunal has the power to allow parties to rely upon documents and to give fresh evidence". Moreover, in the judgement of Alkem Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. (supra) while considering Rule 15 of the Rules, it has been held that the tribunal should not throw out an application on a technical plea. In this context the law laid down in a recent judgment of the Apex Court in Divyash Pandit (supra) relied on by the petitioner company is relevant Paragraph 8 of the said judgment is as under:"8. The appellant has challenged this decision of the High Court before us. We are of the view that the order of the High Court dated 2. 12. 2002 as clarified on 3. 3. 2003 does not need any interference. It is true no doubt that the respondent may not have made any prayer for. . . . . . . . . . . . . additional evidence in its written statement but, as held by this Court in Karnataka SRTC v. Laxmidevamma this did not place a fetter on the powers of the Court/tribunal to require or permit parties to lead additional evidence including production of document at any stage of proceedings before they are concluded. Once the Labour court came to the finding that the enquiry was non est, the facts of the case warranted that the Labour Court should, have given one opportunity to the respondent to establish the charges before passing an award in favour of the workman. " ( 10 ) THUS, in my considered view, the order dated 24th March, 2005 dismissing the petition filed by the company was not proper. The judgments cited on behalf of the workman are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, the order dated 24th March, 2005 is set aside and quashed. The learned Tribunal is directed to dispose of the petition dated 12th March, 2005 and proceed with the proceedings and pass an award expeditiously. ( 11 ) THE writ petition is allowed. ( 12 ) NO order as to costs. ( 13 ) URGENT xerox certified copy of this judgment and order be given to the appearing parties, if applied for, on priority basis.