Non-examination of star-witness is fatal to case: HC

S Shyam Prasad | NT

Benglauru: The High Court of Karnataka in a recent judgement held that the non-examination of a star-witness in a trial is detrimental to the case. A doctor who was to testify about the illness of a workman who was dismissed from service for absence was not examined by the company.

“It has been a settled position of law that the non-examination of a star witness is fatal to the case of a party who wants to put forth a particular version. If the doctor could not be summoned to appear personally, nothing prevented the appellant from securing his presence online at least,” the division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit said in its judgement on an appeal filed by Ms Ranbaxy Lab Ltd (Ms Sun Pharmaceutical Industries).

The workman, Hari Rao, was dismissed from service for absence which he challenged in the Labour Court. He challenged it before a singlejudge bench of the High Court which set aside the Labour Court order and ordered the Company to pay Rao 5 0 percent back wages.

The Company challenged it before the division bench. It was argued that the workman had never approached the said Dr.Shyamsundar Bajaj and his termination from service was correct.

Natural justice not followed

The HC said that the appeal was unworthy of merits and needed to be rejected.

“The termination of a workman for employment is a serious matter, especially when that is the only source of livelihood; no reasons are assigned by the Management for not holding the Domestic Enquiry. Thus, there is a gross violation of principles of natural justice,” the HC.

Finding that the principle of natural justice was not followed while dismissing the workman, the bench said, “We are of the considered opinion that the appeal being unworthy on merits needs to be rejected and reasons for this are not too far: firstly, the termination of a workman for employment is a serious matter, especially when that is the only source of livelihood; no reasons are assigned by the Management for not holding the Domestic Enquiry. Thus, there is gross violation of principles of natural justice.”

Dismissing the appeal, the HC said that the single judge had rightly used his discretion. “Obviously, the appellant company is a huge pharmaceutical industry; it is not shown to be running into losses or the like. That being the position, learned Single Judge has justifiably awarded 50% back wages, in his discretion otherwise statutorily available to the Labour Court and therefore, ipso jure available to the Writ Court.” (WA 701/2023)