Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

23. Dr. Banerjee argued that the Tribunal in its award dated 10.10.2002 did not discuss the evidence produced by the Tribunal. Dr. Banerjee argued that there is no discussion of the evidence of the witnesses produced by the management in the award under challenge. The company before the Tribunal produced two witnesses namely, Shri Parijat Sinha (OPW 1) and Shri Jolly Joshep Mathews (OPW 2). From the award under the challenge it is evident that the Tribunal thoroughly considered the case of the company. The relevant lines from the award, in this respect, are set out herein below:

43. Paragraph 32 of the written statement submitted before the company has two parts. Pursuant to the aforesaid statements made by the company the preliminary objection raised by the company in the first part of paragraph 32 was taken up for hearing as preliminary issues and the Tribunal by order No. 25 dated 30.3.1999 (annexure P 15 of the writ application) decided the issues against the company and in favour of the workmen. That order No. 25 dated 30.3.1999 has also been challenged in the present writ proceeding. It is evident from the second part of paragraph 32 that the company wanted that after determination of the preliminary issues raised by the company the matter may be called upon to be heard on merits, and the parties may be permitted to cite additional evidence in support of the case. On 30.3.1999 by order No. 25 the Tribunal decided the preliminary issues. Thereafter the witnesses namely Shri Parijat Sinha (OPW 1) and Shri Jolly Johsep Mathews (OPW 2), the witnesses for the company were examined in the year 2001-2002. Therefore, the company had enough opportunity to straightaway adduce evidence before the Tribunal justifying its action. If the company chose not to do then except the company no one else was responsible.