Courts cannot reject affidavits in lieu of examination-in-chief; their evidentiary value must be assessed on merits.

The petitioner, appointed as Gruhmata-Matron by respondent No.1 on 07 June 1982, challenged termination of her services dated 30 April 1983 by raising Reference (L.C.B.) Case No. 90 of 1995 before the Labour Court, Bhavnagar.

During the proceedings, she filed her examination-in-chief and, in cross-examination, denied her signatures on documents marked 12/1 to 12/7. Pursuant to the Labour Court’s direction, respondent No.1 produced the original documents, marked 81/1 to 81/7. The petitioner thereafter sought and obtained permission to file an additional affidavit, which was filed as Exhibit 85.

On respondent No.1’s objection that the petitioner had changed her stand, the Labour Court rejected the additional examination-in-chief by order dated 08 October 2021. The petitioner challenged that order under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the Labour Court was justified in rejecting the petitioner’s additional examination-in-chief at the evidence stage on the ground that she had changed her stand regarding the documents.

2. Whether an affidavit filed in lieu of additional examination-in-chief could be rejected by the Labour Court after permission to file it had already been granted and had not been challenged.

3. Whether permitting the additional affidavit prejudiced respondent No.1’s right to cross-examine the petitioner.

The High Court exercised its supervisory and constitutional jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to correct the erroneous procedural order of the Labour Court.

It applied the principle that, during the evidence stage, a party is not automatically estopped from placing two different versions on record; the evidentiary value and inconsistency of those versions must be assessed at the final hearing after the evidence is complete.

The Court further held that once permission to file an additional affidavit has been granted and that order has not been challenged, the opposing party cannot subsequently object to the filing of the affidavit after it has been acted upon.

It also held that an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief cannot ordinarily be rejected merely because its contents are disputed; at most, the evidence may subsequently be discarded or assigned appropriate weight, particularly after cross-examination.

The Labour Court had already permitted the petitioner to file an additional affidavit after respondent No.1 produced the original documents, and that permission order was never challenged.

The petitioner’s changed position regarding her signatures was a matter affecting credibility and evidentiary weight, not a basis for excluding the affidavit altogether. Respondent No.1’s right to test the petitioner’s revised explanation through cross-examination remained intact, and therefore no procedural prejudice was caused by taking Exhibit 85 on record.

The High Court accordingly found that the Labour Court had overlooked the prior permission granted to the petitioner and had improperly rejected the additional examination-in-chief; the conflicting stands were required to be evaluated at the final adjudication of the reference, rather than suppressed at the evidence stage.

Respondent No.1 was granted liberty to cross-examine the petitioner on Exhibit 85. The Labour Court was directed to assess the evidentiary value of the petitioner’s responses concerning documents marked 12/1 to 12/7 and 81/1 to 81/7 at the final hearing and to decide the reference on merits.

Since the reference had been pending since 1995, the Labour Court was directed to decide it within six months of receiving the High Court’s order, with both parties directed to cooperate and avoid unnecessary adjournments. No order as to costs was made.