JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. Heard Mr. P. K. Roy, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. A. Chakraborty, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. Mr. K. Gogoi, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and Mr. J. K. Sharma, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent No.2. 2. The legality and validity of the order dated 25.07.2016 passed by the learned Labour Court, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in Reference Case No.3/2015, have been put to challenge by way of the present writ petition. 3. The issue which has been raised in the instant proceedings is as to whether the Respondent No.2 herein could have been permitted to adduce evidence when the Respondent No.2 did not take a plea in the written statement. 4. For the purpose of adjudication of the above noted issue which is being raised in the present writ petition, this Court finds it pertinent briefly to take note of the facts which led to the filing of the instant writ petition. 5. The Petitioner herein was appointed as a Sub-Editor in the newspaper “Asam Bani” which was a unit of the Assam Tribune Group of Newspapers w.e.f. 01.01.1987 on the basis of an order issued on 22.01.1987. On 04.06.2014, a show cause notice was issued by the Editor of “Asam Bani” alleging that the Petitioner was not found available during the official duty hours from 31.05.2014 to 03.06.2014 after signing the Attendance Register. The Petitioner claims that he had submitted his reply on 07.06.2014 stating that he was very much present on those days and did his assigned jobs. 6. It is the further case of the Petitioner that on 05.06.2014, another show cause notice was issued alleging that the Petitioner had submitted an article titled “Public Interest Journalism and Volin Syndrome” in the Souvenir Book “Role of Media in serving the Public interest” and released by the Press Council of India on the National Press Day dated 16.11.2013 wherein the Petitioner had given his designation as Editor, Asam Bani which according to the Management was falsification of facts and misleading the public. The Petitioner was given 24 hours time to submit reply to the said show cause notice. The Petitioner was given 24 hours time to submit reply to the said show cause notice. The Petitioner further claims that he had hurriedly submitted a reply on the 07.06.2014 stating inter- alia that he had only submitted the article through e-mail with his name and he was not aware about the designation as published in the Souvenir and perhaps the Press Council of India themselves put the designation as Editor. 7. The Petitioner further states that prior to the two show- cause notices dated 04.06.2014 and 05.06.2014, another show- cause notice was issued on 27.05.2014, alleging that one Smt. Enaxi Saikia Baruah had submitted a written complaint that the Petitioner who was the President of the Assam Journalist Union, had used her name in the list of members of the Journalist Union of Assam for procuring a liquor license from the Excise Department. The Petitioner was directed to file the reply which the Petitioner claims to have submitted a reply on 28.05.2014 denying and disputing the said allegations. It is further seen from the pleadings in the writ petition that the Petitioner was issued another show cause notice on 02.06.2014 alleging that the Management of the Respondent No.2 possessed documented proof that Petitioner had written a series of editorial articles in the editorial page of “Dainik Agradoot” viz. “Pratyasha Aru Ashanka” dated 19.05.2014, “Radiya Tapes” dated 30.04.2014 and “Grismadah” dated 28.04.2014 without seeking permission from the Management which was unethical profession etc. The Petitioner submitted a reply on 03.06.2014 denying that he had authored such documents. 8. It is the further case of the Petitioner that the Managing Director of “Asam Bani” and the Assam Tribune Group thereafter without following the manner and procedure laid down in the Standing Order and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice terminated the services of the Petitioner without holding any domestic enquiry by issuing an order dated 19.06.2014. 9. The records further reveal that pursuant to the said termination of the Petitioner on 19.06.2014, a conciliation proceedings was initiated by the Assistant Labour Commissioner- cum-Conciliation Officer, Kamrup (M). However, the said Conciliation proceedings did not reach the desired result which led the Petitioner to approach the learned Labour Court, Kamrup (M), Guwahati for redressal under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the Act of 1947’) as amended by the Amending Act of 2010. 10. However, the said Conciliation proceedings did not reach the desired result which led the Petitioner to approach the learned Labour Court, Kamrup (M), Guwahati for redressal under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the Act of 1947’) as amended by the Amending Act of 2010. 10. At this stage, it is very pertinent to observe that the Petitioner herein is a working journalist and as such the provisions of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act of 1955’) would be applicable. Pertinent herein to observe that in terms with Section 3 of the Act of 1955, the provisions of the Act of 1947 have been legislatively incorporated to the provisions of the Act of 1955 and the said provisions of the Act of 1947 shall apply to and in relation to working journalists as they apply to or in relation to workman within the meaning of the Act of 1947. 11. The records of the Reference Case No.3/2015 which were called for by this Court have been perused. A perusal of the said records reveal that the Petitioner had filed the application under Section 2A of the Act of 1947 and vide an order dated 02.03.2015, notices were issued to file written statements, if any. The Respondent No.2 thereupon appeared and filed its written statement on 01.06.2015. The records further reveal that the parties were thereupon directed to file additional written statement. On 14.07.2015, the Management of the Respondent No.2 filed their additional written statement and the Petitioner filed the additional written statement on 03.08.2015. On 06.10.2015, two issues were framed by the learned Labour Court. The issues which were framed were: (i) Whether the Management of Asam Bani and Assam Tribune Group were justified in terminating the service of Shri Geetartha Pathak, Assistant Editor, Asam Bani by virtue of the order dated 19.06.2014? (ii) Whether Shri Geetartha Pathak is entitled to reinstatement in his service or to any other relief in lieu thereof? 12. After framing of the above issues, the learned Labour Court provided opportunity to the Petitioner to adduce evidence. The Petitioner adduced his evidence by filing the examination-in-chief on 15.12.2015 and the cross-examination of the Petitioner was concluded on 19.04.2016. 13. 12. After framing of the above issues, the learned Labour Court provided opportunity to the Petitioner to adduce evidence. The Petitioner adduced his evidence by filing the examination-in-chief on 15.12.2015 and the cross-examination of the Petitioner was concluded on 19.04.2016. 13. This Court finds it very pertinent at this stage to take note of the order passed on 19.04.2016 by the learned Labour Court. The said order is reproduced herein below:- “Both sides filed hazira. WW1 is present for being cross-examined and accordingly he is so cross-examined and discharge. Heard. Workman side evidence closed as desired. Fixed 6.5.16 for filing evidence on affidavit by the management”. 14. The records further reveal that on behalf of the Management, examination-in-chief on affidavit was filed of one witness on 23.05.2016 and on 07.06.2016, the examination-in- chief of 12 other witnesses were filed. It is also relevant to note that the Respondent No.2 sought for further time for adducing further evidence which prayer was allowed thereby fixing 18.06.2016 for cross-examination of Management witness No.1 to Management witness No.13 and hearing on petition No. 369/16. It is pertinent herein to mention that the petition No.369/16 is a petition filed by the Respondent No.2 for summoning of witnesses and this application was allowed. On 05.07.2016, the examination-in-chief of the Management witness No.14 was filed. 15. On behalf of the petitioner, a petition bearing No.443/2016 was filed for framing of a preliminary issue and the learned Labour Court fixed 12.07.2016 for direction, objection and objection hearing on petition No.443/2016. Objections were duly filed by the Respondent No.2. It is also noticed that on 19.07.2016, another petition was filed which was numbered as petition No.480/2016. Both these petitions bearing Nos.443/16 and 480/16 were disposed of vide the impugned order dated 25.07.2016 whereby the learned Labour Court held that there was no requirement for framing of a preliminary issue and fixed 04.08.2016 for cross-examination of the Management witnesses. It is against this order dated 25.07.2016, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition. CONTENTIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES 16. Mr. It is against this order dated 25.07.2016, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition. CONTENTIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES 16. Mr. P. K. Roy, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the impugned order dated 25.07.2016 is contrary to the law declared by the Supreme Court in the case of Shambhu Nath Goyal vs. Bank of Baroda and Others reported in (1983) 4 SCC 491 wherein the Supreme Court observed that the Management should choose to exercise its right to adduce evidence at the earliest stage and file an application for that purpose without unreasonable delay. He submitted that the Management of the Respondent No.2 in its written statement did not exercise the right by mentioning that they would like to adduce evidence, and as such, at a later stage, the Management of the Respondent No.2 cannot be allowed to file an application seeking permission to adduce evidence. The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that this principle had been declared by the Supreme Court taking a holistic view of the matter in as much as if there is a delay in disposal of the proceedings before the learned Labour Court, it may lead to wrecking the morale of the workman and compel him to surrender which he may not otherwise do. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner further submitted that the law so declared in the case of Shambhu Nath Goyal (supra) had been confirmed by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vs. Lakshmidevamma (Smt) and Another , reported in (2001) 5 SCC 433 wherein the Supreme Court observed that the law declared in the case of Shambhu Nath Goyal (supra) being a long standing decision, the same is required to be approved on the principles of stare decisis. The learned Senior Counsel, however, submitted that taking into account the judgment in the case of Cooper Engineering Limited vs. Shri P.P. Mundhe , reported in (1975) 2 SCC 661 and more particularly paragraph No.22, he would not insist on the legality of the order dated 25.07.2016 for not framing the preliminary issue, and more so, when the learned Labour Court had observed in the impugned order that the said would be decided along with the main issues. 17. Mr. 17. Mr. K. Gogoi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.1 submitted that the order dated 25.07.2016 passed by the learned Labour Court is an interlocutory order which requires no interference at this stage, taking into account the limited jurisdiction which this Court can exercise in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Central Council For Research In Ayurvedic Sciences & Another vs. Bikartan Das & Others , reported in (2023) 16 SCC 462 and in that regard referred to paragraph Nos.49 and 50 of the said judgment. ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION. 18. The materials on record as discussed in the previous segments of the instant judgment would show that the Petitioner approached the learned Labour Court by filing an application under Section 2A of the Act of 1947 seeking redressal against the purported illegal termination of the petitioner. The Respondent No.2 thereupon filed its written statement and both the parties thereupon filed their additional written statements. It is pertinent however to observe that the Respondent No.2 in its written statement did not contend that there was a domestic enquiry conducted. The Respondent No.2 also did not request in the written statement to try the validity of the domestic enquiry as a preliminary issue, rather, it was the Petitioner who sought for framing of a preliminary issue vide the petition No.480/16. It is also very pertinent to observe that after the Petitioner had adduced his evidence and he was cross-examined, the learned Labour Court passed an order dated 19.04.2016 fixing 06.05.2016 for filing evidence on affidavit of the Management. The record further reveals that the examination-in-chief of 14 Management witnesses were submitted by way of an affidavit and it was at the time when the proceedings were fixed for cross-examination of the Management witnesses, the applications were filed by the Petitioner which resulted in passing of the impugned order dated 25.07.2016. 19. Now, let this Court take into consideration the law as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Shambhu Nath Goyal (supra) as well as Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (supra) and as to whether the same would be applicable to the facts involved in the present proceedings. 20. 19. Now, let this Court take into consideration the law as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Shambhu Nath Goyal (supra) as well as Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (supra) and as to whether the same would be applicable to the facts involved in the present proceedings. 20. In the case of Shambhu Nath Goyal (supra), the judgment was delivered by a Bench comprising of three Hon’ble Judges of the Supreme Court and the majority opinion was rendered by His Lordship A. Varadarajan, J. (as His Lordship then was). In the said case, before the Supreme Court, the facts as would appear was that pursuant to an industrial dispute, Reference was made by the Central Government to the Industrial Tribunal, Chandigarh. The Management filed the written statement on 12.08.1970 contending that the dispute was not an industrial dispute. The contention found favour with the learned Tribunal which led to filing of a proceeding before the Supreme Court by the workman which was allowed holding that it was an industrial dispute and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for expeditious disposal. In the said proceedings, upon being remanded, the learned Tribunal framed two issues. One pertained to whether there was a fair and proper enquiry by the domestic Tribunal and the second issue was whether the dismissal of the workman was justified. The Tribunal opined that the enquiry was vitiated and not in accordance to the principles of natural justice. The Management thereupon moved an application for an opportunity to be given to lead evidence in support of the charges framed against the workman in the event the Tribunal holding against it on the first question relating to the conduct of the domestic enquiry. The Tribunal rejected the said application and thereupon held that the dismissal of the workman was not justified and directed reinstatement. It is in the backdrop of those facts, the Supreme Court observed at paragraph No.16 that if the Management chooses to exercise its right to adduce evidence, it must make up its mind at the earliest stage and file the application for that purpose without unreasonable delay. It is in the backdrop of those facts, the Supreme Court observed at paragraph No.16 that if the Management chooses to exercise its right to adduce evidence, it must make up its mind at the earliest stage and file the application for that purpose without unreasonable delay. It was observed that when the question arises in a Reference under Section 10 of the Act of 1947, after the workman has been punished pursuant to a finding of guilt recorded against him in the domestic enquiry, there is no question of the Management filing any application for permission to lead further evidence in support of the charge or charges framed against the workman, for the defect in the domestic enquiry being pointed out by the workman in his written statement filed by the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal after the reference has been received and the Management has the opportunity to look into that statement before it files its written statement of defence in the enquiry before the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal and could make the request for opportunity in the written statement itself. It was observed that if the Management did not choose to do so at that stage, it cannot be allowed to do at any later stage of the proceedings by filing an application for the purpose which may result in delay which may lead to wrecking the morale of the workman and compel him to surrender which he may not otherwise so. Paragraph No.16 of the said judgment being relevant is reproduced herein under:- “ 16. We think that the application of the management to seek the permission of the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal for availing the right to adduce further evidence to substantiate the charge or charges framed against the workman referred to in the above passage is the application which may be filed by the management during the pendency of its application made before the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal seeking its permission under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to take a certain action or grant approval of the action taken by it. The management is made aware of the workman’s contention regarding the defect in the domestic enquiry by the written statement of defence filed by him in the application filed by the management under Section 33 of the Act. The management is made aware of the workman’s contention regarding the defect in the domestic enquiry by the written statement of defence filed by him in the application filed by the management under Section 33 of the Act. Then, if the management chooses to exercise its right it must make up its mind at the earliest stage and file the application for that purpose without any unreasonable delay. But when the question arises in a reference under Section 10 of the Act after the workman had been punished pursuant to a finding of guilt recorded against him in the domestic enquiry there is no question of the management filing any application for permission to lead further evidence in support of the charge or charges framed against the workman, for the defect in the domestic enquiry is pointed out by the workman in his written claim statement filed in the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal after the reference had been received and the management has the opportunity to look into that statement before it files its written statement of defence in the enquiry before the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal and could make the request for the opportunity in the written statement itself. If it does not choose to do so at that stage it cannot be allowed to do it at any later stage of the proceedings by filing any application for the purpose which may result in delay which may lead to wrecking the morale of the workman and compel him to surrender which he may not otherwise do.” 21. It is however very pertinent to observe that the judgment in the case of Shambhu Nath Goyal (supra) was passed in the context of a domestic enquiry being held prior to dismissal or termination of the workman, and the learned Tribunal had framed a preliminary issue as regards the fairness of the enquiry which however is not the case in the present proceedings. 22. The law declared in the case of Shambhu Nath Goyal (supra) was affirmed by the Constitution Bench in the case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (supra). The judgment of the Constitution Bench was based upon three opinions of the Hon’ble Judges. 22. The law declared in the case of Shambhu Nath Goyal (supra) was affirmed by the Constitution Bench in the case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (supra). The judgment of the Constitution Bench was based upon three opinions of the Hon’ble Judges. One opinion was of His Lordship N. Santosh Hegde, J. (as His Lordship then was) wherein the opinion rendered in Shambhu Nath Goyal (supra) was maintained taking into account that the law as declared by the Supreme Court in the case of Shambhu Nath Goyal (supra) was holding the field for 18 years. However, it is very interesting to take note of that in the opinion rendered by His Lordship N. Santosh Hegde, J., it was observed at paragraph No.17 of the report that the judgment in the case of Shambhu Nath Goyal (supra) need not be varied as it was just and fair in as much as there can be no complaint from the Management side for this procedure because this opportunity of leading evidence is being sought by the Management only as an alternative plea and not as an admission of illegality in the domestic enquiry. Paragraph No.17 of the said judgment being relevant is reproduced herein under:- “ 17. Keeping in mind the object of providing an opportunity to the management to adduce evidence before the Tribunal/Labour Court, we are of the opinion that the directions issued by this Court in Shambhu Nath Goyal case need not be varied, being just and fair. There can be no complaint from the management side for this procedure because this opportunity of leading evidence is being sought by the management only as an alternative plea and not as an admission of illegality in its domestic enquiry. At the same time, it is also of advantage to the workmen inasmuch as they will be put to notice of the fact that the management is likely to adduce fresh evidence, hence, they can keep their rebuttal or other evidence ready. This procedure also eliminates the likely delay in permitting the management to make belated application whereby the proceedings before the Labour Court/Tribunal could get prolonged. In our opinion, the procedure laid down in Shambhu Nath Goyal case is just and fair.” 23. This procedure also eliminates the likely delay in permitting the management to make belated application whereby the proceedings before the Labour Court/Tribunal could get prolonged. In our opinion, the procedure laid down in Shambhu Nath Goyal case is just and fair.” 23. In the instant case, as would be seen that it is not the case of the Management of the Respondent No.2 that there was any domestic enquiry carried out. In fact, it is also not the case of the Petitioner that there was any domestic enquiry carried out. Therefore, the question of the Management of the Respondent No.2 to take an alternative plea in the present case do not arise. 24. This Court further finds it pertinent to take note of the concurring opinion of His Lordship Shivaraj V. Patil, J. (as His Lordship then was) wherein it was observed that though the Management has to seek leave of the Court/Tribunal in the written statement itself to lead additional evidence to support its action in the alternative, and without prejudice to its rights and contention, but the said observation so made in the majority opinion opined by His Lordship N. Santosh Hegde J. should not be understood as placing fetters on the powers of the Court or Tribunal requiring or directing the parties to lead additional evidence including production of documents at any stage of the proceedings before they are concluded if on facts and circumstances of this case, it is deemed just necessary in the interest of justice. Paragraph No.45 of the said report being relevant is reproduced herein under:- “ 45. It is consistently held and accepted that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to the proceedings before the Labour Court/Tribunal but essentially the rules of natural justice are to be observed in such proceedings. Labour Courts/Tribunals have the power to call for any evidence at any stage of the proceedings if the facts and circumstances of the case demand the same to meet the ends of justice in a given situation. We reiterate that in order to avoid unnecessary delay and multiplicity of proceedings, the management has to seek leave of the court/tribunal in the written statement itself to lead additional evidence to support its action in the alternative and without prejudice to its rights and contentions. We reiterate that in order to avoid unnecessary delay and multiplicity of proceedings, the management has to seek leave of the court/tribunal in the written statement itself to lead additional evidence to support its action in the alternative and without prejudice to its rights and contentions. But this should not be understood as placing fetters on the powers of the court/tribunal requiring or directing parties to lead additional evidence including production of documents at any stage of the proceedings before they are concluded if on facts and circumstances of the case it is deemed just and necessary in the interest of justice.” 25. In the backdrop of the above, if this Court duly takes note of the order dated 19.05.2016 which has been reproduced in the previous segments of the instant judgment, it would be seen that the learned Labour Court had permitted the Management to adduce evidence. Further to that, as there was no reliance on any domestic enquiry being carried out by the Management, the question of seeking leave as an alternative plea to adduce evidence did not arise. 26. From the above law so declared by the Supreme Court and if applied to the facts of the instant case, it would be seen that the principles of law in the case of Shambhu Nath Goyal (supra) as well as Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (supra) cannot be applied to the facts of the instant case in as much as the Management of the Respondent No.2 neither relied upon any domestic enquiry nor sought for filing of evidence as an alternative. In this regard, this Court finds it very pertinent to take note of a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Regional Manager & Another vs. Pawan Kumar Dubey , reported in (1976) 3 SCC 334 wherein the Supreme Court observed that one additional or a different fact can make a world of a difference between conclusions in two cases even when the same principles are applied in each case to the similar facts. 27. 27. Taking into account the above, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order dated 25.07.2016 requires no interference, more so in exercise of the certiorari jurisdiction of this Court which can only be exercised when the jurisdiction is being exercised in a palpably erroneous manner or when an authority having no jurisdiction has exercised such jurisdiction, which is not the present case. 28. Considering the above, the instant writ petition stands dismissed. 29. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Labour Court on 19.09.2025 for further proceedings in Reference Case No.3/2015. 30. The Registry is directed to send the records of Reference Case No.3/2015 to the learned Labour Court forthwith ensuring that the records are available before the learned Labour Court prior to the date fixed above. 31. Before parting with the records, this Court finds it appropriate to observe that the Petitioner herein had assailed an interlocutory order passed in the Reference proceedings before this Court and the instant proceedings have been pending before this Court since 2016 for no fault of the Respondent No.2. The present proceedings is disposed off in the year 2025. Under such circumstances, the learned Labour Court while disposing off the Reference proceedings may keep in mind the above aspect, should the learned Labour Court decide the Reference proceedings in favour of the Petitioner while granting the reliefs.