Court No. - 42
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 20417 of 2021 Petitioner :- Kali Charan Respondent :- Employee'S Compensation Commissioner /Dlc Aligarh And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anwar Hussain Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
Present petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 16.7.2021 passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Aligarh Region, Aligarh.
By the impugned order dated 16.7.2021 the application filed by the employer (petitioner herein) to summon the claimant no. 2 as witness was rejected. It has further been observed that the claimants have categorically stated that they do not wish to examine claimant no. 2 for which they cannot be compelled, therefore, question of cross examination also does not arise. It is observed that to this argument the employer-opposite party has agreed and as such date was fixed for employer-opposite party evidence.
Learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on provisions of Section 23 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 and Order 16 Rule 14 CPC submitted that the provisions of CPC are applicable in such proceedings and the court has power to summon any person as witness, therefore, the application has wrongly been rejected on the ground that the claimant do not wish to lead any further evidence.
I have perused the provisions as indicated by learned counsel for the petitioner.
There is no doubt that as per Section 23 of the Act of 1923 the Commissioner shall have all the powers of a Civil Court under the CPC for the purpose of taking evidence on oath and of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and compelling the production of documents and material objects and the Commissioner shall be deemed to be a Civil Court of all the purposes of Section 195 and of Chapter XXVI of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. However, perusal of Order 16 Rule 14 CPC would clearly demonstrate that the power of the court is that it may of its own accord summon as witness strangers to suit. It has been further provided that the court at any time thinks it necessary to examine any person including a party to the suit and not called as a witness by a party to the suit, court may, of its own motion, cause such person to be summoned as a witness to give evidence.
In the present case, the application was moved by the employer- opposite party and the court has not called on its own motion.
Further, Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides for order of examinations. It provides that witnesses shall be first examined-in-chief, then (if the adverse party so desires) cross-examined, then (if the party calling him so desires) re- examined. Therefore, question of cross-examination does not arise.
In such view of the matter, I do not find any legal infirmity in the order impugned order herein. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 24.8.2021 Lalit Shukla
Digitally signed by Justice Vivek Kumar Birla Date: 2021.08.24 17:11:14 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad