Prabin Nath v. The General Manager, Bsnl

ORDER Date : 21-03-2024

¶1The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 22.12.2014 passed by the learned Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), in Reference Case No. 11/2011. By the said impugned order, the learned Tribunal has rejected the application filed Page No.# 2/6 by the petitioner for sending the signature of Sri B.S. Paul Mazumder, S.D.E, BSNL, Dibrugarh in Exhibit-1 along with his specimen signatures to Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for expert opinion to determine whether the signature on the certificate dated 05.11.2004 (Exhibit-1) is the signature of Mr. B.S. Paul Mazumdar, SDE (OBC).

¶2The case of the petitioner in brief is that he had been rendering various services like operation of Engine alternator during power failure and first line maintenance of engine including AC operation and maintenance in the office of the Sub-Divisional Engineer NS/TT (OBC Exchange) BSNL. And while he was still in services, the Sub-Divisional Officer, BSNL, Dibrugarh, had issued a certificate dated 05.11.2004 certifying that the petitioner was working under the BSNL. But all on a sudden his service has been terminated on 31.03.2009 without assigning any reason.

¶3Being aggrieved by the termination of his services, the petitioner filed an application before the Labour Commissioner (Central) Government of India, Dibrugarh and prayed for his re-instatement. The said matter was subsequently transferred to the Tribunal at Guwahati. It was registered as Ref. Case No. 11 of 2011. During the trial, the petitioner adduced evidence as PW-1. With a view to show that he was an employee of the BSNL, the petitioner exhibited the said certificate dated 05.11.2004 issued by the sub–Divisional Engineer (OBC) as Exhibit-1. The Management also produced witness; namely, Mr. B.S. Paul Mazumder, Sub Divisional Engineer (OBC) who issued the said certificate dated Page No.# 3/6

05.11.2004. In his evidence, Mr. B.S. Paul Mazumder, Sub Divisional Engineer

(OBC) denied having issued the said certificate (Exhibit-1). He also denied putting his signature on the said certificate dated 05.11.2004.

¶4Highly aggrieved by such denial, the petitioner filed an application before the learned Tribunal where he made a prayer to send the said certificate (Exhibit-1) along with the specimen signature of Mr. B.S. Paul Mazumder to the handwriting expert for determination as to whether the said signature is of Mr. B.S. Paul Mazumder or not.

¶5The respondent contested and file objection. The respondent contended that the said certificate was not issued by Mr. B.S. Paul Mazumder.

¶6Upon hearing the parties, the learned Tribunal by an order dated 22.12.2014 has rejected the prayer made by the petitioner. It is against the said rejection order that the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.

¶7At the very outset, Mr. D. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner made it clear and submits that the limited and the only prayer of the petitioner in this writ petition is that since Sri B.S.Paul who put his signature on the said certificate (Exhibit-1) has denied his signature in Exhibit-1, the learned tribunal may be directed to send the said Certificates (Exhibit-1) along with the specimen signatures of Sri B.S Paul to the FSL for expert opinion and to determine whether the said signature in the Exhibit-1 is the signature of Sri B.S. Paul or not. Page No.# 4/6

¶8Mr. B. Pathak, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that by the impugned order dated 22.12.2014, while rejecting the application of the petitioner, the learned Tribunal; however, had directed the Management to produce Sri B.S. Paul Mazumder, S.D.E, BSNL, Dibrigarh for obtaining his specimen signature. And in compliance of the subsequent order dated

17.02.2015 passed by the learned Tribunal in the said Reference Case No. 11/2011, Sri B.S. Paul Mazumder, S.D.E, BSNL, Dibrugarh, had appeared before the Tribunal and gave his specimen signatures. But since the proceeding of the said Reference Case No. 11/2011 case has been stayed by this Court on

25.03.2015, the matter could not be proceeded further.

¶9While making the above submissions, the learned counsel for the respondent has fairly acceded to the prayer of the petitioner and submits that the respondent has no objection if the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal with a direction to ascertain the signatures in the said Certificates (Exhibit-1) as to whether the same is the signature of Sri B.S. Paul or not. He further submits that such ascertainment may be done by following the procedure as provided under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act and/or may send the same to the FSL for examination by handwriting experts, if required.

¶10I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. D.K. Nath and Mr.B.Pathak for the respondent. I have also gone through record of the case.

¶11Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides for comparison of Page No.# 5/6 signature, writing or seal and it being relevant for the purpose of the present cases, the same is reproduced below:

¶73Comparison of signature, writing or seal with others admitted or proved. –– In order to ascertain whether a signature, writing or seal is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written or made, any signature, writing or seal admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have been written or made by that person may be compared with the one which is to be proved, although that signature, writing or seal has not been produced or proved for any other purpose. The Court may direct any person present in Court to write any words or figures for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare the words or figures so written with any words or figures alleged to have been written by such person. [This section applies also, with any necessary modifications, to finger impressions.

¶12Considering the submission made by the parties and in view of the provisions of law under Indian Evidence Act, I am of the opinion that this matter can be remanded back to the Tribunal as prayed. According, the matter is remanded back to the learned Tribunal with a direction to re-consider and decide the issue raised herein above afresh and ascertain the signature in the Certificates (Exhibit-1) by following the procedures provided under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, and/or, send the said Certificate (exhibit) along with the specimen signatures of Sri B.S. Paul Mazumder S.D.E, BSNL, Dibrugarh to FSL for expert opinion, if required. Page No.# 6/6

¶13The entire exercise, as directed above, shall be expedited by the learned Tribunal and complete at the earliest possible time preferably within six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the Tribunal in the Reference Cases.

¶14The petitioner may submit a certified copy of this order before the learned Tribunal for necessary compliance.

¶15With the above observations and directions, these writ petition stands disposed of.

¶16Send back the record immediately.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010210752015 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1916/2015 PRABIN NATH S/O LT. CHENIRAM NATH, R/O JATAKAINATH GAON, P.O. JATAKAINATH, DIST- DIBRUGARH, ASSAM, PIN-785666 VERSUS THE GENERAL MANAGER, BSNL BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., DIBRUGARH TELECOM DISTRICT, DIBRUGARH, PIN-786001 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.N DUTTA Advocate for the Respondent : MR.Y DOLOI BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG